Mu'tah University

Deanship of the Graduate studies

Problems of Translating Ambiguous Structures

in the Holy Quran

By
Asma Abdulhafiz Al-Oudat

Supervised by
Dr.Mohammad Al-Khawalda

A Thesis Submitted to the Deanship of the

Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master in Applied
Linguistics. Department of English Language

Mu'tah University, 2009

1
2
 Dedication

To those who I've grown up with their values and I'm glad I
did..................
To those who have a place of honor deep within my heart............
To those who have been my superhero, right from the very
start....................
Without you, I wouldn't be the person I am today...................
You built a strong foundation; No one can take away.................
To you .................Dear Mum & Dad; for your patience, support and
help……

To My Lovely Sisters and Brothers

Asma Abdulhafiz Al-Oudat

I
 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to all

those who contributed to the completion of this study. I am deeply
indebted to Dr. Mohammad Khawalda, my supervisor, for his
encouragement, constructive comments, and continuous guidance during
the entire thesis work. My thanks and appreciations are also extended to
the members of the examination committee Dr. Ahmad Muqbel, Dr.
Bashar Al-Rashdan and Dr. Abdulilah Al-Nahar, for their critical review
and valuable discussion of this thesis.
I also wish to express my indebtedness and thanks to my uncle
Hamdalla Al-Banna, and Dr. Muhammad Rayyan whom I consulted so
frequently.

Asma Abdulhafiz Al-Oudat

II
 Table of Contents
Contents Page
Dedication 1
Acknowledgements 11
Table of Contents 111
Abstract in Arabic 1V
Abstract in English V
Chapter One: Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3
1.3 Significance of the study 4
1.4 Purpose of the study 5
1.5 Methodology 5
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature 6
2.1. Translation of the Holy Quran 6
2.2 Structural Ambiguity 11
Chapter Three: Findings and Discussion 16
Chapter Four: Conclusion and Recommendations 29
References 31

III
 2009

.
.

IV
 Abstract
Problems of Translating Ambiguity Structure in the
Holy Quran

Asma Abdulhafiz Al-Oudat

Mu'tah University, 2009

The aim of this study is to investigate how the issue of structural

ambiguity is treated by some famous commentaries on the Holy Quran
and the translations of the meaning into English.
The main concern of the researcher is to focus on some ambiguous
structures in the Holy Quran which are considered ambiguous by some
commentators because their contexts can convey more than one meaning.
The researcher also depends and comments on three English translations
of the Holy Quran depending on some famous commentaries. It turns out
that, it is impossible to translate the Holy Quran because translation
carries only the translator’s point of view. Moreover, it is a well known
fact that the Holy Quran is a miraculous text; in its words, structure and
meaning. Even in Arabic, it is not easy for any Arabic native speaker to
understand and to account for all possible readings and meanings of the
Holy Quran. If this is the situation, what would we say about translating
the Holy Quran. Generally, while reading some translations of the Holy
Quran, we feel that we are reading a completely different thing and we
are submitting to the translator’s view of a particular verse.

V
 Chapter one
Introduction

1.1 Background:
The Holy Quran, the Sacred Book of the Muslims, is a revelation
from Allah. It was sent down to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the
Arabic language by the angel Gabriel over a period of 23 years. The Holy
Quran is divided into 114 chapters, each of which is called a Surah.
Muslims believe that the Holy Quran is the book of divine guidance and
direction for mankind, and they consider the text (in the Standard Arabic)
to be the final divine revelation of Allah.
Translation is the process of interpretation of the meaning of a text,
and subsequent production of an equivalent text. That is, the aim of any
type of translation is to produce a comprehensible text in the target
language (TL) and to convey the text of the source language (SL) and to
grapple with structural and lexical features of both languages.
Translation in general is not an easy process because it should take
into consideration the lexical, structural, and cultural factors. It is a well
known fact that one can not find two languages which are lexically and
structurally identical; this means that literal translation could be
misleading. Badawi (2008:6) states that:
“Many problems are likely to occur when
translating between any two languages. Some
aspects of translation are quite difficult regardless of
which language you are translating into or from.
However, we should elaborate on the fact that the
Arabic language has certain characteristics that
make it even more difficult to translate, in addition
to other characteristics that are peculiar to the Holy
Quran itself as a standard of the Arabic language.”

1
 Translation of religious text is more complicated than any type of
translation because dealing with religious text means dealing with ideas,
beliefs and culture of a certain nation. That is, the translator must be
steeped in the language and culture of both nations.
Translation of the Holy Quran has always been a problematic and
difficult issue. Since Muslims revere the Holy Quran as miraculous and
inimitable (I’jaz al-Quran), they argue that the Quranic text can not be
reproduced in another language or form. In fact, most Muslim
translations are labeled ‘translations of the meanings of the Quran’:
“What being rendered in these bilingual
translations is not the various connotations or so-
called secondary senses of words but rather their
primary or core sense. The idea is that one can not
capture all the possible meanings of the Holy Quran
since that is part of its miraculousness.” Leaman
(2006:658)
Since the researcher admits that the translation of the Holy Quran is
problematic, it is reasonable to talk about a serious problem when we
translate ambiguous structures in the Holy Quran. In linguistics,
generally, there are two types of ambiguity, lexical and structural.
According to the Structural ambiguity, it is used when the phrase or
clause has more than one meaning or interpretation. For example,
The girl hit the boy with the book
This sentence means either that ‘the girl used the book to hit the boy’ or
‘the boy who has a book’. Another example, ‘I know whom John knows’
which means either ‘I am acquainted with the same people as John is’, or
‘I know who John's acquaintances are’.
Ben-Ari, Berry, and Rimon (1988:2) mention that structural
ambiguity occurs where the sentence may have more than one meaning.
They give the following example:
1. Businessmen who are afraid to take risks frequently lose out
to their competitors.

2
This sentence can be read either as Businessmen who are afraid to take
risks, frequently lose out to their competitors or as Businessmen who are
afraid to take risks frequently, lose out to their competitors
2. Good boys and girls go to heaven.
It can be read either as [Good boys] and girls or as Good [boys and
girls.]
Ambiguous structure is a source of problem for translators. As
stated above, If translating the Holy Quran is problematic and a very
difficult process, what about translating ambiguous structure in the Holy
Quran. For instance:
)
(35: )(
‘He said: We will strengthen thine arm with thy brother, and We
will give unto you both power so that they cannot reach you for Our
portents. Ye twain, and those who follow you, will be the winners.’
The above verse has two meanings depending on the syntactic
break; the first one sets before and after the word ( ) ‘evidences’
whereas the second one sets after the word ( )‘you two . However,
when we come to the translation we find that one of the translators adopts
one meaning and does not mention anything about the second meaning:

1.2 Statement of the Problem:

As we mentioned above, the issue of structural ambiguity which
has led to different interpretations and translations creates a serious
problem in the translation of the Holy Quran. So, the translators have to
focus on the various interpretations of any Quranic expression. If they
don’t do that, the message of any ambiguous expression will be distorted.
For example:
35:10( )
‘To him ascend (all) the goodly words and the righteous deeds exalt it’

3
 Here, the source of ambiguity that makes the structure of the verse
bears two meanings is the pronominal object affix ( ) in the word
( ) ‘i.e. exalt it‘ which can either refer to Allah which has led to the
meaning that Allah exalts (the righteous deeds) or refer to (the righteous
deed) exalts (the goodly words). These two different interpretations have
led to two different translations. The translation by Ali (1983:1155)
provides a translation that is based on the first analysis. However, Al-
Hilali and Khan (1983:582) provide a translation based on the second
analysis:
Ali: To Him mount up (all) Words of Purity: it is He Who exalts each
Deed of Righteousness. (10)
Al-Hilali and Khan: To him ascend (all) the goodly words and the
righteous deeds exalt it (i.e. the goodly words are not accepted by Allah
unless and until they are followed by good deeds.

1.3 Significance of this study:

A lot of research has been conducted in the field of the translation
of the Holy Quran, but, to my knowledge, this is the first study which is
restricted to the investigation of the accuracy of translating ambiguous
structure. In general, ambiguous structure is problematic which means
that the appearance of it in the Holy Quran requires more and more effort
to arrive at an accurate translation.

1.4 Purpose of the study:

This study aims at investigating the accuracy of the translation of
ambiguous structures in the Holy Quran. The above introduction could
give an idea about the problems which could face translators when
dealing with structural ambiguity. Moreover, it aims at suggesting ways
to deal with these issues as a result of understanding the context and the
meaning of the structures.

4
1.5 Methodology:
To achieve the objectives of this study, restriction is made to three
official translations, produced at different times. These are: Ali (2003),
Khan and Al-Hilali (2005) and Pickthall (1992). However, we have to
admit that not a single translation appears to have resolved the problems
of translating the Quranic expressions that contain structural ambiguity.
This does not imply that the translators are incompetent, but rather
suggests that they were not aware of the existence of the ambiguous
structures, which require the consultation of famous commentaries.
To gain more insights into these ambiguous structures, some
Muslim commentaries were selected as to be the yardstick against which
the ambiguous structure will be identified, and the adequacy of the
proposed renderings of the ambiguous structure chosen for this study will
be assessed and judged. These commentaries belong to: Abi Hayyan
(1992,1993), Al-Alousi (2001), Ibn Kathir (20002), Al-Tabari (2001),
Al-Qortobi (2006), Al-Zajjaj (1988) and Al- Zamakhshari (1997, 1998).

5
 Chapter two
Review of Related Literature

2.1 Translation of the Holy Quran:

"Translation is generally perceived as the
process of establishing equivalence between a
source language text (SLT) and its target language
text (TLT)" (Faiq,1984).
Therefore, in the process of translation from one language to
another, the translator must be professional in both languages he/she is
working with.
For all the religious texts, translation has been an important vehicle
for the spread of the message, and without it, it is difficult to imagine
how the religious community could have survived and grown. In other
words, through the process of translation, the translator plays a crucial
role in bringing cultures together, helping people to build up a clearer
picture about others’ behaviors and even more their ways of thinking.
But in the case of translation of the Holy Quran, it must be considered
that:
"the Quran is not a translatable text – the
Quran in translation is not the Quran any more"
(Moir, P. 16).
Translation of the Holy Quran, particularly, is not a recent or a
new issue. It has been translated into many languages and receives much
attention by both translators and commentators. There is no doubt that
such a holy and miraculous book would somewhat lose much of its
spiritual value when it is translated into another language. Such loss is
often caused by a number of factors including lexical, structural
gabs….etc. However, despite all of these factors; the Holy Quran has
been translated by both Muslims and non-Muslims, and Arabs and non-
Arabs. It is a well known fact that the translator of religious texts must
take into consideration linguistics, cultural, contextual factors, etc.

6
 There are many reasons which could create many problems in
translating the Holy Quran (Al-Shunaq, 1988). Fore example, when a
translator decides to translate the meaning of the Holy Quran, he will
select one of different possible meanings of a verse and present it as if it
were the only meaning intended by Allah. Then, if another translator
translates the same verse and selects another meaning, the two
translations will convey two different meanings of the same verse.
However, that will lead to contradictory translations in many languages
(Salem 1999). For instance, if we look in the following verse:

[2:106] )
(
[106] ‘Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be
forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it.’
We will find that some translators translate ( ) ‘what’ in this verse
as a particle of negation whereas others translate it as a conditional tool.
As can be noted, there is no agreement between these two different
translations which leads to misunderstanding of the exact meaning of the
verse. So, more effort and clarity are required if the lexical and syntactic
features of the target language and the source language differ (Herman,
1993).
Although the Holy Quran has been translated into many languages;
including English, most of these translations carry only one meaning
which is the translator’s point of view. Thus, translation of the Holy
Quran has been traditionally rejected by Muslim scholars because the
meaning of it can never be fully translated and because each time one
returns to the Arabic text, he/she finds new meanings and fresh ways of
interpreting it (Irving, 2002).
Non-Muslims generally don’t have the knowledge and the
background which enables them to understand the Quran through
translation:
“Such a translation would provide them with
not more than a picture drawn for a lion by a

7
 schoolboy. Without telling you what it is, you might
think that it is a picture of a cat or a wolf”
(AlKhawalda, 2004).
Moreover, these are also problems that Arabic speakers could
encounter. Some native Arab-speakers will confirm that some Quranic
verses are difficult to understand even in the original Arabic. A part of
this is the innate difficulty of any translation; in Arabic, as in other
languages, a single word can have a variety of meanings so what about a
sentence. Even in Quranic verses which seem perfectly clear to native
speakers may not represent the original meaning of the verse. We can say
here that, in the Arabic Language, there is rich vocabulary and the very
small word in Arabic may have difficult shades of meanings. For
example, if someone attempts to translate, he simply tries to select one
English word or term that encompasses that meaning. However, this does
not fully convey the meanings of the Holy Quran. (Badawi, 2008:7).

The original meaning of a Quranic verse will also depend on the

historical circumstances of the Prophet Muhammad's life (PBUH) and
early community in which it originated. Investigating that context usually
requires a detailed knowledge of commentaries, which are vast and
complex texts. This introduces an additional problem that translators do
not pay attention to.
Othman (2003) mentions, in her study about the translation of the
Holy Quran and its consequences, that many translators who translated
the meaning of the Holy Quran admit that most of the obstacles and
difficulties they faced during translation were due to the differences of
language and style. One of those translators is Arberry (cited in Othman,
2003:44) who says that:
"there is no doubt that the Holy Quran language can
challenge any other suitable translation because detailed data in the
Holy Quran is a miracle and more accurate than others.” However,
each of lexical meaning, rhetoric and rhythm in the Holy Quran plays a
significant role in the miraculous aspects of the Holy Quran. That is, it
is impossible for any translation to account for all these aspects. This is

8
why it is natural to believe that any translation would depreciate
miraculous aspects of the Holy Quran.
In addition to the fact that the meaning of the Holy Quran would
be depreciated and many of its miraculous aspects in the process of
translation are sacrificed, we can say that some translators fail to translate
the meaning, for example, Pichthall fails in his translation to the
following verse:
( 5: )( ):
‘And they say: Fables of the men of old which he hath (has) had
written down so that they are dictated to him morn and evening.’
He translates ( ) as ‘so that’ whereas it should be ‘and’ or ‘so’.
Therefore, this will change the meaning of the verse.
Inappropriate translation would certainly lead to
misunderstandings. For example, when the translator renders, Al-Baqara,
the title of the second chapter, into English as the cow, this will be
nonsense to a non-Muslim who would expect an anatomic description of
the animal. Moreover, it is difficult in many cases to find equivalent
words and expressions in any languages to the words and expressions of
the Holy Quran. Accordingly, it is preferable in most cases to use the
same word using Roman letter. For example, ‘ ’ is generally not
translated into the English word ‘God’ we use the same words in Roman
letters ‘Allah’. Other examples ( )‘hajj’ not ‘pilgrimage’, ( )
‘masjid’ not ‘mosque’ and so on. So, such expressions are nowadays
used all over the world by people regardless of the language they use
although some translators opt for the translation of these terms.
Al-Majali and Al-Qudah (2006) draw attention to the difficulty
and impossibility of literal translation of the Holy Quran. An example
they give, which shows that the translation does not convey the intended
meaning in this verse, is [17:29]:
( )
‘Make not thy hand tied (like a niggard's) to thy neck, nor stretch it forth
to its utmost reach, so that thou become blameworthy and destitute’ (29)

9
 Al-Buqaa’e (2002) mentions that there are many characteristics which
push translators not to adopt a literal translation, such as:
1. The Holy Quran is a miracle, cannot be translated.
2. The Holy Quran words are unique and hard to find alternatives.
3. By translation, the Holy Quran will lose the beauty and the Arabic
dialog, pleasure and effectiveness on readers.
4. The literal translation will make the Holy Quran lose its multitude
of text because it is an interpretation of certain words. That is, the
understanding of the text goes under multi levels because of the
culture, psychological and social status.
Al-Buqaa’e (ibid) assures the reader that all translation that
translators do is not sufficient because each of them indulges his beliefs
and intentions into the text. And he prefers to establish a committee made
up of experts in Arabic language, Islamic studies and translation to
translate the meaning of the Holy Quran, which will get good results.
As stated above, the Holy Quran is miraculous; it is the words of
Allah and nobody can produce similar to it even in Arabic. Therefore, the
translation of the meaning of the Holy Quran is just a human attempt in
trying to convey its meaning no matter how accurate or professional the
translator might be. The Quranic expressions and structures are unique
and cannot be reproduced in an equivalent way to the original in terms of
structure, its effect on the reader, and the intentionality of some source
text. In other words, translating religious texts, especially the Holy
Quran, is in the words of Jasper (in Long, 2005:105) “an impossible
necessity”.

According to this fact, Rahab (2001) mentions a number of reasons

for the lack of research on the Holy Quran translation:
1. The sacred status of the Holy Quran and the belief in its
untranslatability could discourage Muslim scholars to proceed
any further in investigating its translation.

10
 2. Most of the scholars pay their attention researching the Quranic
text in Arabic such as the circumstances of its revelation, its
collection, its interpretation.
3. The decision made by Al-Azhar scholars to favor the
interpretive translation of the Holy Quran may let the translator
and the scholar not to look deeply at the real transfer of the text
and therefore, at the translation process underlying it. The
interpretative translation means that when a translator translates
the meanings of the Holy Quran firstly then if he faces any
difficulty to understand the meaning of any verse he will look at
it and leave the vocabulary. Therefore, translators distinguish
between the interpretative translation and the translation of the
interpretation of the Holy Quran.
So, these reasons may lead to a lack of interest in investigating the
Holy Quran translation.

2.2 Structural Ambiguity

Ambiguity is used to describe the words or expressions which
could have more than one interpretation. When a given word is
ambiguous, it is called ‘lexical ambiguity’, i.e. the word ‘light’ it either
means the ‘opposite of dark’ or ‘not heavy’. But when a given structure
is the source of ambiguity, it is called ‘structural or syntactic ambiguity’.
For instance,
She loves her cat more than her friend
This sentence is ambiguous because it has two interpretations, either it
means ‘she loves her cat more than she loves her friend’ or ‘she loves
her cat more than her friend loves her cat’
Bolinger (1981:98) introduces structural ambiguity by focusing on
the relationship between the deep and surface structure. He claims that
structural ambiguity occurs when “a single surface structure corresponds
to two or more deep structures”. For example:
if you do not stop as soon as I signal you will
receive a shock.

11
 Hurford & Heasley (2007) also point out to the same point that
there are two separate types of ambiguity: structural and lexical
ambiguity. When a sentence can be interpreted in more than one way, it
is structurally ambiguous.
For instance:
Visiting relatives can be boring
This example can be interpreted in two ways:
‘it could be boring to visit relatives’ or ‘relatives who are
visiting relatives can be boring’:
In other words, a sentence can be ambiguous when its words relate
to each other in different ways, even though these words are not
ambiguous. For instance:
‘we saw her duck’
can either mean ‘we saw her lower head’ or ‘we saw the duck
belonging to her’, and these two sentences do not convey the same
meaning. Accordingly, ‘we saw her duck is ambiguous.
Kempson (1977:123) comments on the definition of ambiguity, he
states:
“it is a clear-cut phenomenon: both words and
sentences can have more than one meaning, and the
semantic rules a linguist sets up must state correctly
for each language which words and sentences have
more than one meaning”.
He mentions that this definition is not wrong, but also we can not
say that there is little problem to decide if a given sentence is ambiguous
or not. While there are some clear sentences, for example; the chicken is
ready to eat, there are many sentences where it is not clear whether the
sentence is ambiguous or not. For instance, he gives us the word good as
an example. If we take it alone, it is not ambiguous. But if we put this
word in a sentence like, she has good legs. It can either mean that ‘she
has uninjured legs’, or it can mean she has legs which work well (as
an athletic)’. So, the word good may be used in sentences with different

12
interpretations where the difference depends only on the way the word
good has been used.
According to Newmark (1981:25), Structural Ambiguity, occurs when
the stress in a clause or when relationships between word-groups or
clauses in a larger unit are not clear, i.e. one does not know ‘what goes
with what’. For example, he has plans to leave.
Hirst (2003:184) provides many examples to show that structural
ambiguity is ambiguity of the structure of the utterance itself. For
example,
The Admiral, after taking two or three refreshing turns about the room
with his hands behind his back.

Here, the prepositional phrase ‘with his hands behind his back could
be either a modifier of taking, describing the manner in which the turns
around the room were taken, or of room, describing the room. Therefore,
we can consider this sentence an ambiguous one.
According to Berry et. al. (2003:10-11), Structural Ambiguity, occurs
when:
“the arrangement of words in a sentence can
be given more than one grammatical structure,
and each has a different meaning”.
They also refer to different type of structural ambiguity, as an
analytical, attachment, coordination, and elliptical ambiguity.
1. Analytical Ambiguity occurs when the constituents within a phrase or
sentence is ambiguous. For instance, The Tibetan history teacher can
be read as The (Tibetan history) teacher or The Tibetan (history
teacher).
2. Attachment ambiguity occurs when a particular Syntactic constituent
of a sentence, such as a prepositional phrase or a relative clause, can
be attached to two parts of a sentence. For example,
The police shot the rioters with guns

13
 In this sentence, the phrase with guns can be taken either as a
modifier of the noun rioters or as a modifier of the verb shot, leading
to two different interpretations: either:
‘the rioters were armed with guns when the
police shot them’, or ‘the police used guns to
shoot the rioters’.
3. Coordination ambiguity occurs when more than one conjunction is
used in a sentence or when one conjunction is used with a modifier.
An example of the first type is:
I saw Peter and Paul and Mary saw me
This sentence can be read either as:
‘I saw (Peter and Paul) and Mary saw me’ or as
‘I saw Peter and (Paul and Mary) saw me’.
A comma can disambiguate a sentence like this. An example of the
second type is the phrase:
young man and woman
It can be read either as (young man) and woman or as young (man and
woman).
4. Elliptical ambiguity occurs when it is not certain whether or not a
sentence contains an ellipsis. An example is:
Perot knows a richer man than Trump
This sentence has two meanings that:
‘Perot knows a man who is richer than Trump
is’ and that ‘Perot Knows a man who is richer than
any man Trump knows’.
As can be seen, the first meaning has no ellipsis whereas the second
has an ellipsis, which is the implied knows coming just after Trump.
Valente (2004) talks about different types of ambiguity including
Syntactic Ambiguity. He claims that structural ambiguity occurs when
the function of words in the sentence is not immediately identifiable. E.g.

14
they are shooting soldiers. Here, the meanings which arise might be;
someone is shooting soldiers. Or the soldiers are shooting.

15
 Chapter Three:
Findings and Discussion
Problem of the translation of
Ambiguous Structure in the Holy Quran

This chapter is concerned with ambiguous structure as pointed out

by various commentators on the Holy Quran, especially, those relying on
linguistic context for interpretation; Abi Hayyan (1992,1993), Al-Alousi
(2001), Ibn Kathir (20002), Al-Tabari (2001), Al-Qortobi (2006), Al-
Zajjaj (1988) and Al- Zamakhshari (1997, 1998). And it is also
concerned with how the English translators deal with ambiguous
structures in the Holy Quran by three major translators of the Holy
Quran; Ali (2003), Khan and Al-Hilali (2005), and Pickthall (1992).
) (1
(35: ) (
The underlined phrase has two meanings: the first meaning is the
heart of every arrogant ( ). Therefore, this means that ‘the hearts of all
arrogants’ because the word ( ) ‘arrogant’ here is governed by the
word ( ). While the second meaning of the verse can also be
understood as follows: that ‘the whole heart of the arrogant’ where the
word ( ) ‘arrogant’ here is an adjective to the word ( ). Here, the
heart is described as ‘arrogant’ and ‘tyrant’ because it is the source and
the center of ‘tyranny and arrogance’.
Abi Hayyan (1992:9 p.258), Al-Alousi (2001:12 p.322) and
Zamakhsharri (1997:4 p.171) validate the two interpretations.
Now, if we look at the translation, we will find that none of the
translators under discussion adopt the second meaning which indicates
that the word ( ) ‘arrogant’ is an adjective to the heart. So, all of them
adopt ( ) ‘arrogant’ to be a governed word. For instance,

16
 Ali: ‘Thus does Allah seal up every heart of
arrogant and obstinate transgressors.’

We have to notice here that Ali uses non-modern English words.

So, in this verse the word ‘transgressors’ means in English to violate a
command or law or to go beyond a boundary or limit which indicates,
for example, that the person is a tyrant.
Pickthall: ‘Thus doth (does) Allah print on
every arrogant, disdainful heart.’
Khan and Al-Hilali: ‘Thus does Allah seal up the
heart of every arrogant, tyrant. (So, they
cannot guide themselves to the right path).’
) (2
(12: ) (

( ) ‘ give thanks to Allah’ has two interpretations: the first

one indicates as Allah bestowed upon Luqman ( )‘ the wisdom and
religious understanding’, he shall give thanks to Allah because blessings
are given and granted by Allah. And the second one means it is wise to
give thanks to Allah. If you give thanks to Him, He will give you more
grace and blessing. Abi Hayyan (1992:8 p.412/413) and Al-Alousi
(2001:11 p.83) say in ( ) ‘ give thanks to Allah’ that Al-
Zamakhshari (1997:3 p.500) says that the word ( ) ‘ that’ is an
explanatory word, because giving wisdom depends on the meaning that
Allah points out that the original wisdom is to worship and thank Allah
while Al-Zajjaj (1988:4 p.195) says that the word ( ) ‘ that’ is ( ).
If we look at the translation, we will find that all translators interpret
the verse to mean that ‘Allah bestowed upon Luqman wisdom and
religious understanding, and then Luqman should give thanks to Allah
for that’, and none of the translators mention the second meaning, for
instance:

17
 Ali: ‘We bestowed (in the past) wisdom on
Luqman: ‘Show (your) gratitude to Allah.’
Any who is (so) grateful does so to the profit of
his own soul: but if any is ungrateful verily Allah
is free of all wants, worthy of all praise.’

Pickthall: ‘And verily We gave Luqman

wisdom, saying: Give thanks unto Allah; and
whosoever giveth (gives) thanks, he giveth (gives)
thanks for (the good of) his soul. And whosoever
refuseth (refuses) - Lo! Allah is Absolute, Owner
of Praise.’

Khan and Al-Hilali: ‘And indeed We

bestowed upon Luqmân AlHikmah (wisdom and
religious understanding saying): "Give thanks to
Allâh,’
Here, we can see that Khan and Al-Hilali use Islamic English word
( )instead of saying ‘wisdom’ but they refer to its meaning in
English as they say (wisdom and religious understanding saying).
) (3

(15 : ) (

In this verse,( ) ‘but they understand little’

bears two meanings; either means little understanding of Fiqih as
mentioned by Al-Tabari (2001:25 p.95) and means they understand a
little of the world life issues and this apparently means that they think of
nothing else but of it as Abi Hayyan (1993:8 p.94) and Ibn Khathir
(2002:4 p.277) say. Ibn Khathir (ibid) adopts that this verse is like
another verse that is ( )‘they know only the
outside appearance of life of the world such as the matters of their
livelihood, like irrigating or sowing or reaping, etc.’ or the verse can be
understood as they do not understand except a few people.

18
Now, let’s consider the following translations:
Ali: Nay (no/not) but little do they understand
(such things).
Pickthall: Nay (no/not), but they understand
not, save a little.
Khan and Al-Hilali: Nay (no/not), but they
understand not except a little”
As can be seen, all translators select almost the same word but only
Ali who specifies his translation by selecting the first meaning which
includes a little understanding of such things while the other translators
leave it open without specifying any meaning.
) (4
(160: )(

In this verse, the expression ( ) ‘because of

their much hindering from Allah's way’ could be interpreted either as
‘many people or much hindrance and a lot of time’. Abi Hayyan (1992:4
p.133) interprets it by saying that this means many people. Therefore, the
word ( ) ‘many’ here is an object. Al-Tabari (2001:6 p.29-30) also
adopts the same interpretation that they hindered a great number of
people and adopts the second meaning that they make much hindrance by
denying Mohammad's mission and some consider it as a lot of time.
Now, let’s consider the following translations:
Ali: ‘in that they hindered many from Allah's
way.’
Pickthall: ‘and because of their much
hindering from Allah's way.’
Khan and Al-Hilali: ‘and for their hindering
many from Allâh's Way.’

19
It is clear that Pickthall in his translation supports the interpretation
which says ‘much hindrance’. But Ali and Khan and Al-Hilali support
that the meaning is ‘hindrance of many people’.

(282 : )( ) (5

The source of ambiguity here is the verb ( ) ‘harm’. It gives the

sentence two readings. The first reading indicates that Allah forbade the
scriber and witness to harm others by concealing the evidence or failing
to attend to witness or forge it. Here, Abi Hayyan (1992:2 p.740-741)
says that the verb ( ) ‘harm’ is considered as (mabni lilfa'el) )
( . Al-Zajjaj (1988:1 p.366) also selects the same because it is said
then:
( )
‘But if you do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you’
Here, the word ( ) ‘wickedness’ applies to those who distort the
scribing and refrain from giving testimony. The second reading, on the
other hand, indicates that Allah forbade that the witness and the scriber to
be harmed by those who pressure them to alter or divert the right
evidence or not to give evidence. Here, the verb ( ) ‘harm’ is
considered as (mabni lilmaf'ool) ( ), and Al-Tabari (2001:3
p.167-166) selects it because the address from the beginning of the verses
is for the addressee and the one witnessed for not for the witness or the
writer.
Now, let’s consider the following translations:
Ali: and let neither scribe nor witness suffer
harm.
Pickthall: ‘and let no harm be done to scribe
or witness’

20
 Khan and Al-Hilali: Let neither scribe nor
witness suffer any harm,
Apparently, none of the translators refer to the first meaning that says
‘the scriber and witness must not harm others’ by concealing the
evidence or failing to attend to witness or forge it. All of them select the
second meaning that ‘Allah forbade that the witness and the scriber to be
harmed by other’.
) (6
(43 : )(
The underlined part of verse has two readings. In the first reading,
the verse says that ‘there is no ( ) ‘ saviour’ but the Merciful (Allah)’.
Here, the word ( ) ‘ saviour’ is a subject. In the second reading it
means that ‘none is protected or saved except ( ) ‘the saved’ upon
whom the Mercy of Allah is bestowed’. This means that none can rescue
him except Allah. Both Abi Hayyan (1992:6 p.158-159) and Al-Alousi
(2001:6 p.258) mention the same interpretations.
According to the translation, all translators adopt the first meaning
which says there is no saviour except Allah, and none of them adopt the
second one: for instance,
Ali: ‘Noah said: This day nothing can save,
from the Command of Allah, any but those on
whom He has mercy!’
Pickthall: ‘(Noah) said: This day there is none
that saveth (saves) from the commandment of
Allah save him on whom He hath (has) had
mercy.’
Khan and Al-Hilali: ‘Nuh (Noah) said: this
day there is no saviour from the Decree of Allah
except Him on whom he has mercy.’

21
 (96-95 : )( * ) (7

Here, ( ) /ma/ ‘what’ in ( ) ‘Allah has created you and

what you make’ could either be ( ) or a particle of negation. Al-
Qortubi (2006:18 p.57) and Ibn Khathir (2002:4 p.20) favor that it is
( ). So, the interpretation based on this meaning will be )
( ‘Allah has created you and your handwork’ which signifies the
meaning. Abi Hayyan (1992:9 p.112) also prefers this meaning. He bases
his statement on (how can a human being who has been created worships
a created body?) And both are creatures of Allah. On the other hand, it is
said too that ( ) ‘what’ is a particle of negation which means that ‘you
can do nothing at the time of your creation’ as Abi Hayyan (ibid) says.
Now, let’s consider the following translations:
Ali: But Allah has created you and your
handiwork!
Pickthall: When Allah hath (has) created you
and what ye (you) make?
Khan and Al-Hilali: while Allah has created you
and what you make.
As can be seen, Pickthall, Khan and Al-Hilali approve the interpretation
which says that Allah created yourselves and the sculptures which you
make, while Ali approves the interpretation which says that Allah create
you and your deeds and you can control nothing.
( ) (8
(21 : )

( ) ‘ So that you may seek piety’ is either linked with

( ) ‘ worship’ or is inter-linked with ( ) ‘ created you’. The
meaning could probably be that if you worship Allah, you will escape
from His anger and hell because you seek piety – which means protection
from hell and attainment of paradise. So here, ( )‘So that you

22
may ward off evil’ is correlated directly with ( ) ‘worship’ because
those who were created for hell were not actually created for piety. This
interpretation has been mentioned by Al-Tabari (2001:1 p.214), Al-
Qortobi (2006:1 p.341) and Abi Hayyan (1983: p.95-96). Abi Hayyan
(ibid) confirms that the word ( ) ‘may’ here does not mean in order to
but it is for hopefulness and wishes, and only for the addressee, because
Allah does not hope since ( ) ‘he is aware of invisible
aspects and testimony’. Al-Zamakhshary (1998:1 p.214) does not
mention anything other than that ( )‘So that you may ward off
evil’ is inter-linked with ( )‘created you’. This explanation was not
accepted because it is far away from the actual interpretation. It looks as
if you say, for example ( )‘Hit Zaid and will
hopefully hit him.’ This explanation explicitly shows weakness and
misrepresentation of sense that the Holy Quran is inculpable of this.

According to the translation, all translators adopt that ( ) ‘So

that you may seek piety’ is directly related to ( ) ‘worship’. And none
of the translators adopt the second interpretation that is interpreted by Al-
Zamakhshary (ibid.)
Ali: ‘O you people! Adore your Guardian-
Lord, who created you and those who came
before you, that you may have the chance to
learn righteousness.’
Pickthall: ‘O mankind! worship your Lord,
Who hath created you and those before you, so
that you may ward off (evil).’
Khan and Al-Hilali: ‘So that you may become
Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V. 2 :2)’

23
 (4 : )( ) (9

There are two meanings for the underlined phrase ( ) ‘in toil’.
The first one means sufferance and hardship. Man encounters
sufferance in life, in securing his living and in cultivating his land, etc.
Also man encounters sufferance with himself by worshipping Allah and
avoiding sin. Abi Hayyan (1993:8 p.470) interprets ( ) ‘in toil’ as
man challenges discomfort in his present life and in the afterworld. His
discomfort is endless in life from his birth time until such time he
settles down in paradise where his sufferance comes to a stop or in hell
where his sufferance intensify. The second one means that man was
created in rectitude and virtuousness. The first interpretation is
apparently selected by Abi Hayyan (ibid) and Al-Alousi (2001:10
p.351).

Now, let’s consider the following translations:

Ali: ‘Verily We have created Man into toil and

struggle’.

Pickthall: ‘We verily have created man in an

atmosphere’.

Khan and Al-Hilali: ‘verily, We have created

man in toil’.
As we noticed, in this verse, each of Ali, Khan and Al-Hilali prefer
the explanation which says that man encounters the sufferance he meets
in his lifetime and in the afterworld, and his sufferance continue until he
settles down in either Paradise or Hell. Pickthall however does not
translate either of the above interpretations.

24
 (16: )( ) (10

In this verse, ( ) ‘who is in heaven’ has two

interpretations: the first one according to Al-Tabari (2001:29 p.3) shows
that there is possible ellipsis before ( ) ‘ who’ which is the word ( )‘
creator’. So, the interpretation of this will be ‘the creator of everything in
heaven’. While the second meaning as Abi Hayan (1993:8 p.296) shows
that ( ) ‘who is in heaven’ is figurative because the actual fact is
that Allah is not confined to a particular place. This only means that His
Kingdom is in Heaven. So, the interpretation of this will be ‘Can you
(pagans) trust the Creator to apply His power and Supreme against you or
can you challenge punishment of the Creator if you disobey Him?’
According to the translation, all the translators adopt the first
interpretation while the second one is not taken:
Ali: Do you feel secure that He Who is in
heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by
the earth when it shakes (as in an earthquake)?
Pickthall: Have ye (you) taken security from
Him Who is in the heaven that He will not cause
the earth to swallow you when lo! it is convulsed?
As can be noted, Ali and Pickthall use ‘ye’
instead of ‘you’.
Khan and Al-Hilali: Do you feel secure that
He, Who is over the heaven (Allah), will not cause
the earth to sink with you, and then it should
quake?
): (11
(38: )(

The part of verse ( ) bears two different

interpretations; either that ‘in that particular place where Zakareyya sits,
he asks Allah his need’. Or it can be interpreted as ‘in that time when

25
Zakareyya had seen the miracles that happened to Marriam by Allah, he
asks Allah his need’. Abi Hayyan (1992:3 p.125) and Al-Alousi (2001:2
p.139) mention these two different meaning.
Now, let’s consider the following translations:
Ali: There did Zakariya pray to his Lord
saying: "O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a
progeny that is pure; for You art He that hears
prayer!’ (38)

Pickthall: ‘Then Zachariah prayed unto his

Lord and said: My Lord! Bestow upon me of Thy
bounty goodly offspring. Lo! Thou art the Hearer
of Prayer.’ (38)
Khan and Al-Hilali: ‘At that time Zakariyâ
(Zachariya) invoked his Lord, saying: "O my
Lord! Grant me from You, a good offspring. You
are indeed the All-Hearer of invocation.’
As can be noted, none of the translators refers to the two meanings
together. For example, Pickthall and Khan and Al-Hilali depend, in their
translations, on the second meaning which is concerned with the time
when Zakareyya asks Allah to help him. Whereas Ali depends, in his
translation, on the first meaning which is concerned with the place where
Zakareyya asks Allah to help him.
): (12
(102: )(

The different interpretations of ( ) in the underlined part of the

verse ( ) make the verse bears two different meanings. In
the first case,( ) comes here as a relative pronoun as ( ) ‘what’. So, in
this case, the underlined verse would be interrelated with
( ). But we have to notice here that this meaning does not imply that

26
‘the angles ‘teach charm’ because they are sent by Allah. Therefore, what
they were sent with is a kind of test for people there. In the second case,
( ) comes here as a negation particle. So, the underlined verse would be
interrelated with ( ) as mentioned by Abi Hayyan (1993:1
p.497) and Al-Alousi (2001:1 p.341).
When we come to the translation we will see that none of the
translators seek the right meaning, but we have to notice here that Ali
puts in a footnote that the angles can never teach charm which is a good
note to refer to.
Ali: ‘the blasphemers were, not Solomon, but the
evil ones, teaching men magic and such things as
came down at Babylon to the angels Harut, and
Marut.’
Pickthall: ‘Solomon disbelieved not; but the
devils disbelieved, teaching mankind magic and
that which was revealed to the two angels in
Babel, Harut and Marut.’
Khan and Al-Hilali: ‘Sulaimân did not disbelieve,
but the Shayâtin (devils) disbelieved, teaching
men magic and such things that came down at
Babylon to the two angels, Hârût and Mârût,’.
(33: ) ( ) (13

According to some famous commentators of the Holy Quran, this

verse is found to contain two different meanings. In this verse, the
pronoun in the word ( )‘hidden behind the veil’ is interpreted in two
ways by Abi Hayyan (1993:7, p.380) and Al-Alousi (2001:11, p. 184-5).
They argue that it may refer to ( )‘the sun’ which is an elliptical
element in this structure. Or that it may refer to ( ) ‘horse’.
Accordingly, we can say that there are two interpretations here.
Now, let’s consider the following translations:

27
 Ali: ‘And he said: Truly do I love the love of
good, with a view to the glory of my Lord"
Until (the sun) was hidden in the veil (of Night)’
Pickthall: ‘And he said: Lo! I have preferred
the good things (of the world) to the
remembrance of my Lord; till they were taken
out of sight behind the curtain.’
Khan and Al-Hilali: ‘And he said: I have
preferred the good things (of the world) to the
remembrance of my Lord; till they were taken
out of sight behind the curtain.
As can be seen from the renditions above only Ali refers in his
translation to the sun whereas none of the others refers to a specific
meaning.
To conclude we can say that translation of the Holy Quran to any
other language is not as easy as one might think. This kind of work needs
experts in Arabic language who are aware of the rhetorical language’s
characteristics, Arabic grammar and intricacies, beside being experts in
the language they translate into the target language in order to expect a
good reflection. (See Othman (2003) among others)
Since I feel that the main aim of this work is to shed light on the
problem of translating ambiguous structure, I hope by giving the above
examples I have given the reader a clear picture about the nature of this
problem.

28
 Chapter Four
Conclusions and Recommendations

In my opinion and as a result of the previous discussion, it seems to

me that it is impossible to translate the Holy Quran itself; rather we can
translate the meanings of it. This can be attributed to the fact that the
Holy Quran is a miraculous text; in its words, structure and meaning
because it is the words of Allah. Therefore, nobody can produce similar
to it even in Arabic:

):
(88: ) (

‘Say: If the mankind and the jinn were together to produce the like
of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they
helped one another.
And even if we translate it, it could be possible that adopting a
rendering might create ambiguity in its new context and convey some
new different meanings. In the previous discussion, I noticed that the
translators adopt only one meaning from the structure that could convey
more than one meaning. Consequently, this will distort the meaning of
the Holy Quran.

The translator must have a strong command of Islam and a very solid
background in Arabic language. Moreover, he must have a strong
command of the language to which he wants to translate, in addition to a
very good linguistic knowledge to be able to account for different
matters.
Accordingly, if we want to arrive at a good translation of the Holy
Quran but definitely it will not be equivalent to the Holy Quran itself, the
researcher recommends the following:

1. Establishing an international Islamic Committee as mentioned by Al-

Buqa’e (ibid) which consists of experts in Arabic language, Islamic

29
 studies and translation to translate the meanings of the Holy Quran,
which will get good results.
2. Encouraging the study of Arabic language by establishing a centre for
learning Arabic especially in Muslim community for non-Arabic
speakers.
3. Translators must focus on translating the interpretations of the Holy
Quran rather than focusing on translating the meanings of it, because
this will give a chance for the reader to understand the structure that
conveys more than one meaning.
4. Translators of the Holy Quran must be well-versed in the two
languages and the two cultures (Arabic and English) in order not to
ignore any possible meaning that the verse can convey.

30
 References

A. References in English
Al-Khawalda, M. (2004). The Deterioration of the Usage of ‘kaana’
in the Holy Quran via Translation. Babel 50:3, 215-229
Ali, A. Y. (2003). The meaning of the Holy Quran: complete
translation with selected notes. The Islamic foundation: Al-
Makoum charitable foundation. Malaysia, UAE
Badawi (2008) Translations of the Quran. :6 Available on:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4373688/Translations-of-the-
Quran-Dr-Jamal-Badawi
Bolinger, D. & Sears. (1981). Aspects of language, by Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Inc. New York, USA, D.
Ben-Ari, Berry, and Rimon (1988), translational Ambiguity
Rephrased :2 Available on:
http://se.uwaterloo.ca/~dberry/FTP_SITE/reprints.journals.con
ferences/BenAriRimonBerry1988.pdf
Berry, Kamsties and Krieger (2003), Linguistic sources ambiguity,
10-11 Available on:
http://se.uwaterloo.ca/~dberry/handbook/ambiguityHandbook.
pdf
Catherine Moir ,Faith in translation: the translatability debate in
Islam and Christianity Representing religion through
translation. Available on:
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/research/documents/CP-
CatherineMoir.pdf.
Faiq, S. (1984) Handling Metaphor in Sensetive Texts:
Contributions from Arabic to English. University of
Salford, England.

31
Herman, M. (1993). Amsterdam ,Technical Translation Style:
Clarity, Concision, Correctness. In Wright, S. and L. Wright
(eds.) Scientifi c and Technical Translation: Benjamins
Publ. Co.
Hirst (2003).Natural Language Processing, Disambiguation in,
Intermediate Article, :184 Available on:
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/pub/gh/Hirst-2003-EncCogSci.pdf
Hurford, J & Heasley, B. 2007. Semantics: A coursebook. Second
Ed. Cambridge University Press.
Irving, T. English Translation. In http://isgkc.org/translat.htm
Kempson, Ruth M. (1977). Cambridge Semantic Theory.
Cambridge University Press,.
Khan, M and Al-Hilali, M (2005) translation of the Meanings of
the Noble Quran, King Fahd Complex for the printing of the
Holy Quran. Madinah, K.S.A.
Leaman, O. (2006), The Qur’an an Encyclopedia. Routledge 662
Available on:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13907186/Leaman-Ed-Quran-
Encyclopedia
Newmark (1981). Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Pickthall, M. (1992) The meanings of the Glorious koran; An
Explanatory Translation: London: David Campbell
Publishers Ltd. :25
Rahab, N. (2001: P 404) the steate of research in Quran Translation.
Translation and meaning, Part 5.
Shunnaq, A. (1998). “Problems in Translating Arabic Text into
English. In Shunnaq, C. Dollerup and M. Sarairah (eds.).
Issues in Translation. National Library. Amman.

32
Valente, F. (2004) Ambiguity. Available on:
http://hypnoticadvancements.com/language_ambiguity.htm

B. References in Arabic

2002

. (4 )

.1993
1993 (2,3,4,6,8,9) .1992 -
(3 ) . - / (1,3,8)
2003
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/readArt.php?lang=A&id
=31105
.2001
.
. (1,2,6,10,12)

2002
. - 8762
http://www.aawsat.com/details.asp?section=17&article=137940
&issueno=8762

33
 1988 .
(1,4) . -

1998 .
-
( 1) / ( 3) .
(1 ) .

2001 .
-
(1,3,6,25,29)

2006 .
.
(1,18)

.(2008)
. ( 1936-1875)
( 2)

34
:
:
:
:
2009 :
:
:

35