Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s Translation of the Quran:

An Evaluation
Zaidan Ali Jassem
College of Medicine, King Saud University, KSA
In Issues in Education 24: 29-52
Abstract
The intention of this paper is to assess, evaluate and appraise Abdullah
Yusuf Ali’s translation of the Holy Quran, may Allah bless his soul. Ali’s
translation enjoys great respect and has a wide circulation among
English-speaking Muslims, especially in the Indian sub-continent; it also
has received considerable approval from Muslim scholarly circles around
the globe, which is evidenced by the revisions it had at the hands of
Islamic institutions and academies in various parts of the world. Despite
all of these revisions, however, the translation, notwithstanding the
excellent service it did to the Book of Allah and propagation of Islam to
millions of people, still suffers from serious shortcomings at the level of
concept representation, language, style, coherence, and typography. A
selection of these drawbacks will be described in this paper. Our work
must not be seen in any way as to disparage the translation; rather, it must
be looked at as a way of improving on this superb work; it must be seen
as a means towards an end: to render the maximal, optimal and best
service to the book of Allah: which brings people from the depths of
darkness to light, guidance and mercy. To achieve this end, translations of
the Quran must be presented in the best, easiest and most readily
comprehensible manner possible to make it accessible not only to the
lucky few but to the majority of people. Suggestions and proposals will
be finally offered as to how to best put these improvements into practice.

1
Introduction: History of Translations of the Holy Quran
The Holy Quran is the Word of Allah, which was revealed unto the
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) well over 1400 years ago, in order to bring
out humanity from darkness into light, form ignorance into knowledge,
from disease and malady into health, from straying into guidance, from
seclusion and exclusion into inclusion and togetherness, from war and
adversity into peace and friendship, and from distancing away from one
another into getting to know one another. Communicating with one
another to achieve and establish peace and harmony and resolve all
conflicts with justice and wisdom is one of the goals of the Holy Quran
for which Muslims strive and sacrifice the best and the dearest in its
cause.
As the Holy Quran communicates this message in Arabic to all
mankind without favouring any race over another whatsoever, the need
for translating it arises since most people do not speak or understand
Arabic. Although translating the Holy Quran is a controversial issue
amongst Muslim faqihs or jurists, it is a reality that nobody can deny,
especially when we take into account that countless people of various
languages came to know more about and embraced Islam through such
translations.
The Quran has been translated into numerous languages since
ancient times, especially Muslim languages (see Ali 1989: xix). It is
beyond the scope of this paper to outline their history here. However, we
shall say a few words about the history of such translations in English so
that Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s can be seen in better perspective.
All English translations of the Holy Quran owe something of a debt
to its earlier translations into European languages. The first such
translation was made into Latin in 1143 A.C. for the Monastery of
Clugny, which was not published until 1543 A.C. by Bibliander in Basle.

2
This Latin version was later translated into Italian, German (1616),
Dutch, French (1647), and Russian (1776). In 1689 A.C., another Latin
version of the Quran was made by Maracci, a Confessor to Pope Innocent
I, and who dedicated it to the then Roman Emperor Leopold I. This
translation contained both the Arabic text side by side with the Latin
version; it was venomous in that it attacked, refuted and discredited
Islam and the Quran (see Ali 1989: xix).
In English, the first translation was made by A. Ross of the French
Du Ryer version of 1647, and published in the early 1650’s. George
Sale’s infamous translation was based on Maracci’s Latin one, whose
purpose was to discredit Islam and the Quran. That is why it has gone
through many editions and adopted by the top clergy. Prof. E. H. Palmer’s
(1876) translation is careless and slipshod because of his denigration of
the Quran and its language. One thing sums up all these tanslations: they
are the produce of non- and anti-Muslims discrediting Islam and the
Quran in the eyes of the West (Ali 1989: XX).
There is another type of English translations of the Quran, which
are made by Muslims whose aim is to give a true and honest rendering
thereof. These Muslims are mostly Indian, the first of whom was Dr.
Muhammad Abd al Hakim Khan, whose work was published in (1905).
This was followed by other works, some of which were completed and
published, some were not. Moreover, the style and language of some of
those translations is weak (see Ali 1989: XIX).
Ali (1989: XX) singled out two Muslim translations of great merit:
one by Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (1930) and one by Mr. Marmaduke
Pickthall (1930), who is an ‘English Muslim, a literary man of standing,
and an Arabic scholar’. Each of these two translation has its
shortcomings, though. For example, Pickthall’s is “almost literal”
rendering (see Ali 1989: XX).

3
Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s Translation
He was born in 1872 to a religious Bohra family in Bombay, India.
He memorized the Holy Quran young, received Arabic and Islamic
education. He obtained an Indian Civil Service award to do English
literature in which he excelled and published. He left for Europe and
resided in London for a considerable period of time, wherein he
developed an interest in the translation of the Quran into European
languages. Later, he returned to Lahore, India and became Dean of the
Islamic College, where he began his translation and commentary on the
Quran. He died in 1948 in London (pers. com., Dr. Syed Mohd Yunus
Gilani) (Ali 1989: viii).
Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation is a very sincere and honest one.
Ali (1989: XX) described his task thus:
These are the considerations which have moved me to
undertake the stupendous task of providing an English
interpretation of the Qur’an. I pray for strength and
light, so that I may be enabled to succeed in the
service of Islam.

Thus, it tries to avoid all the shortcomings and drawbacks of earlier

English translations, whether made by Muslims or non-Muslims. He
acknowledged the obstacles in the way which did not deter him,
nonetheless, from taking up the challenge of translating the Quran which
Pickthall described as “that inimitable symphony the very sounds of
which move men to tears and ecstasy”. In this connection, Ali further
commented that (1989: XX):
Perhaps the attempt to catch something of that
symphony in another language is impossible. Greatly

4
 daring, I have made that attempt. We do not blame an
artist who tries (but fails) to catch in his picture
something of the glorious light of a spring landscape.
(Brackets ours)

Ali’s translation consists of the following features:-

1. Arabic text of the Quran;
2. English translation thereof set parallel to the former;
3. Preface to first edition in which he describes the need and
the reasons that led him to undertake the new translation as well
as his method of translating, which he described as (Ali 1989:
xii):
In translating the text I have aired no views of my
own, but followed the received commentators. Where
they differ among themselves, I have had to choose
what appeared to me to be the most reasonable
opinion from all points of view. Where it is a question
merely of words, I have not considered the question
important enough to discuss in the notes, but where it
is a question of substance, I hope adequate
explanations will be found in the Notes.

His rendering of the meanings is a general one (Ali 1989: xiii),

which is most difficult to express. Of the difficulties faced by the
translator in this respect, he mentioned (1989: xvi - xvii) the following:
a) The evolution of the meanings of Arabic words after the Prophet
and Companions;

5
b) The further evolution of the Arabic language in later times as
happens when later commentators abandon interpretations of their
predecessors;
c) The comprehensive nature of Arabic root-based vocabulary which
makes it difficult to interpret word for word or by using the same word in
all places as in the word Sabr ‘patient, persevere’.
d) The capacity of Arabic words to distinguish between ideas and
things of a certain kind by using special words, for which there is only
one general word in English such as ‘ghafar, safaha, ‘afa (to forgive).
e) The limited intelligence of man which cannot unravel Allah’s perfect
Word and purpose.
4. Commentaries of the Quran: This describes the standard commentaries
used in the interpertation of the Quran or tafsir (xvii-xviii).
5. Translations of the Quran: This describes in brief their history in
some human languages, especially Urdu and European languages.
6. Notes: There are 6306 notes altogether, which further explain the
meanings of the translated verses. These are of three types: Some are
linguistic notes, giving various renderings to certain words; some simply
explain the meaning of the ayat; and some are general and
impressionistic. All constitute the commentary.
7. Appendices: There is a number of appendices (11 in total), which are
too large to be included in the notes. These vary in nature: some are
purely historical, some linguistic-cum-interpretative, and some legal.
8. Poetry Section: Abdullah Yusuf Ali seems to adore poetry. Not only
he tries to translate and present the Quran poetically, but also he
summarizes every Surah or Chapter or parts thereof with a poem. There
are 300 poems, with an introductory and concluding poem of 41 and 6
stanzas each. It has to be noted that these poems are deleted from the
Madinah-edited translation, something which we commend.

6
Revisions of the Translation
There are two main editions and revisions of Ali’s translation: the
Presidency of Islamic Researches’ (1410H) and Amanah Corp.’s (1989).
Both agencies chose, edited and revised Ali’s translation for its good
merits. The former, from whose cover page the author’s name has been
dropped but mentioned in the Introduction (p. vi), though, noted “its
distinguishing characteristics, such as highly elegant style, a choice of
words close to the meaning of the original text, accompanied by scholarly
notes and commentaries” (p. vi); the latter stated that “the eloquent
poetic style of the translation and the authenticity of the extensive
commentaries and explanatory notes, have no doubt contributed greatly to
its much deserved reputation as the English translation of the Qur’an” (p.
ix).
Editing and revision in both copies is really marginal. The
Presidency’s edition has no word on what was edited and how. There is
mention of four committees (pp. vi-vii) that have been entrusted at
various stages with choosing, adopting and editing the translation in full.
There are some words (16 in total - see viii) that the committee came
across and which could not be translated into English, such as Zakat and
Taghut. These have been transliterated with a brief explanatory note at
first occurrence (for a full list, see p. viii).
However, one notices that the poems are all dropped out - which is
a good thing to do as the Quran is not poetry per se. Further, it is very
nicely and clearly printed and decorated; so it is a pleasure to read.
In the latter, revision was centred on the footnotes and appendices.
The translation, the commentary and Surah introductions, were left
untouched except for a few changes which concern the usage of Allah and
Messenger in place of God and Apostle in earlier editions (Amanah 1989:

7
ix). All other changes are of a formal, typographical nature (Amanah
1989: x).

A Critical Evaluation
The translator cautioned his readers not to stop enjoying the
Quran if they disagreed with his translation thereof (1989: xiv) on which
he spent a long period of his lifetime. In this respect, we affirm that our
criticisms of the translation make us enjoy the Quran more and more,
especially when we feel we are fulfilling our duty in being vigilant and
watchful over its translations into foreign tongues and guarding them
from error. For this reason, we have read the translation from cover to
cover more than once. At one reading, we decided to make a few notes
where spelling errors or misprints have been made, which later led us
into other areas of grammar, language, style and discourse: i.e.,
evaluating the whole work.
Thus the purpose of this critique of the translation and its revisions
should be looked at as to improve upon rather than reject them altogether.
This becomes all the more important as these revisions have been mostly
concerned with form rather than content.
The present evaluation will be made at several levels: language,
discourse, style, translation method, writing mechanics, and typography.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to make an exhaustive survey of all
those areas here; this is an impossible task for now. However, we shall
selectively and briefly describe certain features from each level.

At the Level of Language

By language we mean morphological and grammatical structure
and the usage of words. As to morphology and grammar, we mean the
usage of pronouns, verb forms and tenses as well as sentence structure

8
such as word order and the like. Ali favours obsolete speech and writing;
he writes in the language that Shakespeare, Milton and Ben Jonson used
about 400 years ago (for examples, see below). This is very odd thing to
do in the 20th century, especially as there is none amongst native speakers
of English who can understand these great authors without explanations?
Unlike Arabic, English has no fixed standard and so keeps changing all
the time. So to address English speakers clearly and comprehensibly,
there is a need for talking like them, using contemporary English and not
dead English. Furthermore, Muslim, non-native English speakers are the
ones who are going to lose the most here. They are the people for whom
the translation is written; yet they can’t understand its language clearly
and readily. Therefore, updating the grammar and morphology is a
pressing necessity.
Furthermore, there are grammatical errors in the area of tense
choice and sequence in particular and preposition usage in general. For
example,
And every time I have
Called to them, that Thou
Mightest forgive them,
They have (only) thrust
Their fingers into their ears,
Covered themselves up with
Their garments, grown obstinate,
And given themselves up
To arrogance.
(Sura 71: 7)

But we do think
That no man or spirit

9
 Should say aught that is
Untrue against Allah.
(sura 72: 5)
In both verses, the italicised verbs should be in the simple past tense,
judging by what comes before and after them: i.e., the context or
discourse (see below). In the first verse, there can’t be two present
perfects in the same sentence but rather one in the present perfect, one in
the simple past. The second verse should be in the past tense also as all
the preceding and following verses are in the past tense: i.e., tense
sequence. Actually, tense is a most problematic area which needs very
detailed analysis and thorough revision. We shall leave this for future
research.
As to words, Ali seems to prefer archaic, obsolete and rare
vocabulary. There are hundreds of such words which affect the
intelligibility of the text, which is a very central factor to successful
communication (see Jassem and Jassem 1996). Some of these words are
very rarely used in modern English such as
Verily those who plight
Their fealty to thee plight
Their fealty in truth to Allah.
(Sura 48: 10)
Wouldn’t this be better expressed in present-day English as “...swear /
pledge their allegiance / loyalty..” (cf. his rendering of 48: 18). Here is
another example:-
As if they were
Affrighted asses
(Sura 74: 50)

10
in which “affrighted” cannot even be found in widely-used modern
dictionaries such as Longman (1975, 1995), COBUILD (1995) and
Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary (1997). “Frightened” would be a
much better term, wouldn’t it?
Thus using ancient and uncommon vocabulary serves no good
purpose; nor does it make the style beautiful; rather this makes it dead
and so kills the text by turning readers away from it. Only very few
people may be familiar with such words. Most native English speakers
know only common, every day and contemporary vocabulary which
means that these very people for whom the translation is targeted do not
understand parts of it because it is not using what they usually use.
Furthermore, for most Muslim users of the Quran, who are non-native
English speakers with varying degrees of competence in it, using such
uncommon and obsolete words is not going to help them either.
Therefore, the words must be brought in line with good, common,
modern usage if we feel like doing a good service to Islam, the Quran and
mankind. Remember the Bible is being constantly updated in this respect.
Besides, there are other problems with his translation of Quranic
lexis, the two most important of which are word choice and recurrent
words and phrases. With respect to word choice, this refers to faulty
selection of words in the translation. There are cases where the translator
did not seem to really recognize the true shades of their meanings on the
grounds of being not a native speaker of Arabic. For example,
“fa’asbaha kha’ifan yataraqqabu…”
In the morning, he was
In the City, fearful
And vigilant…
(Sura 28: 18)

11
The translator rendered the underlined word and many similar
occurrences thereof (e.g., 28: 82; 67: 30) literally and incorrectly.
Although this word is essentially derived from a time word “morning”,
its meaning cannot be “in the morning”, nonetheless. Rather, it
indicates a change from state to state: i.e., “to become”. Thus the proper
meaning is “So he became fearful and vigilant in town”.
Here is another example,
“wa anna almasajida lillahi …”
And the places of worship
Are for Allah (alone)…
(Sura 72: 18)

The underlined would be more properly translated as “mosques” than

otherwise, which is the standard equivalent. Today there are places of
worship for all kinds of trivial things: humans, devils, fires, toys, cows,
snakes and trees. Only mosques are meant for the true worship of Allah
(SWT) alone.
The translation of scientific vocabulary and concepts is another
related and problematic area, which we have discussed briefly in another
paper here (see Jassem and Jassem). Although Ali was generally
successful in rendering such concepts, he, however, failed to give precise
terms and often used the same word throughout to render several words
of similar meanings. For instance, in his translation of terms of creation
of the world in which the Quran used a number of terms such as
“Khaliq” and “fatir”, Ali translated both as “Creator” like all other
translators did before him. Although both terms denote “Creator”, they
are not precisely the same in meaning. One is “Creator” and one is
“Splitter, Divider”. This way using these two terms is better for this is

12
consistent with the cosmological theory on the formation of the universe
by splitting from an original gaseous mass.
Also of interest are those cases in which the meaning has been
reversed or misunderstood. Here is an example:
wassama’a banainaha biaidin wa’inna lamusi’oon
We have built
The Firmament with might:
And we indeed
Have vast power.
(Sura 51: 47)

The underlined word refers to the continuous expansion of the universe,

which modern science has established. Thus it would be more properly
rendered as (“And which We keep expanding”).
Here is another example,
yaqooloona ‘a’inna lamardoodoona fee alhafirah?
They say (now): “What!
Shall we indeed be
Returned to (our) former state?-“
(Sura 79: 10)
The italicised Arabic words, which mean (“whilst in the grave”), are
either misunderstood or completely missing in the English version
whereas the emboldened words must all be enclosed with brackets as they
are insertions to facilitate understanding.
As to recurrent words, these refer to constant, fixed or repetitive
words, phrases, and expressions that occur more than once. These are of
two types in the Quran: one type occurs with the same meaning nearly
always and everywhere for which a standarized and consistent translation
must be given throughout. For example,

13
 1. “walladheena aamanoo wa amiloo assalehat”
And those who believe and work righteousness (2: 25; 3: 57; 10:
4)
But those who have faith and work righteousness (2: 82)
Those who believe and do deeds of righteousness (1: 277; 4: 57,

122, 173; 5: 9)
Such as believe and do righteous deeds (95: 6)
Those who have faith and do righteous deeds (98: 7; 103: 3)

2. al-akhira
The Hereafter (2: 4, 86, 102, 130, 200, 201, 217, 220)
The world to come (2: 114)

3. “al-jabbar” (59: 23)

“The Irresistible” (59: 23)

4. Al-qahhar
The Overpowering (40: 16);
Irresistible (38: 65);
Irresistible, Supreme over (6: 16, 61);
Supreme and Irresistible (12: 39; 13: 67)

5. alyaum alakhir
The Last Day (2: 8, 62, 177, 228, 233, 264)

As can be seen, Ali often translates such terms, except for number
5, differently and with a great deal of liberty and variation in this respect.
These must be consistently translated, using standardized and fixed

14
 formulas to facilitate understanding and to cross-refer the reader to other
similar places already encountered, as he did in example 5 above. This is
necessary as inconsistency may lead to confusion, obscurity and
indeterminacy. For example, in the case of “al-jabbar” and “al-qahhar”,
being two of the 99 beautiful names of Allah, there is no distinction
between them. Furthermore, the different equivalents “alqahhar/alqahir”
are messed up and chaotic. It would be more proper to render them as
“The Dominant”, “The Overpowering” and “The Supreme” respectively
as these are the meanings they have with reference to God in the Quran.
Another category includes recurrent expressions with varying
degrees of meaning, some of which are often with a psychological and
affective tone attached to them, which may indicate “doing favour,
blaming, condemning, reproach” and son on. Such words obviously call
for a different and non-uniformed translation, depending on their context.
For example, the words linked to the root MNN “favour” such as
"manna, tamunnu, minnat, etc.”, whose proper translation would be to
look for the intended meaning and translate it accordingly. Here are a
few such examples:-
1. “watilka ni’matun tamunnuha alaiya an abbadta banee
Israeel…”
And this is the favour
With which thou dost
Reproach me, …
(26: 22)

Here reproach is not the correct equivalent as the Arabic word

refers to a favour one does to another but keeps mentioning that to him
in a way that upgrades the giver and downgrades the taker. Thus the

15
 correct equivalent would be: “… the favour you cease not to mention
to… / constantly remind me of….”
2. “wala tamnun tastakthir” (Sura 74: 6)
Nor expect, in giving,
Any increase (for thyself).

This translation is strange. Although the sentence is a conditional

one with two parts: a) wala tamnun “don’t mention your favours”,
tastakthir “you’ll get more, multiply, increase”, Ali ignores this
structure and translates it as a non-conditional sentence by re-arranging
it, a procedure he very rarely employs, and again with the wrong
meaning. The proper translation is thus:
“(If you) do not mention your favours, you will multiply (your rewards in
return)”.
Another example concerns the word “ tuakhidhna” as in:
3. “rabbana la tu’akhidhna inn naseena au akhta’na..” (2: 286)
“Our Lord!
Condemn us not
If we forget or fall
Into error,..”

The word “Condemn” is not the proper equivalent for “tu’akhidhna”,

which occurs several times (most of which in the negative) in the Quran
and has been translated variably such as “punish (35: 45); rebuke”
elsewhere. A more suitable word would be “Don’t take us to task/
account; do not harbour ill-feelings against us; do not ill-treat us; do not
chide us; forgive, excuse, pardon us.”
One more example is the word “awzi’nee” as in:
4. “rabbi awzi’nee an ashkura ni’mataka”

16
 (27: 19; 46: 15)
O my Lord! So order me
that I may be grateful
For Thy favours……”
(Sura 27:19)

O my Lord!
Grant me that I may be
Grateful for thy favour
(Surah 46:15)

Not only has the word “awzi’nee” been rendered using two equivalents
although the same meaning (of the same word) is intended but also both
words are not suitable in either place. The proper translation should use
one word for both contexts, which may be one of these: “prompt, incite,
move, motivate, arouse, inspire, impulse, enable”.

At the Level of Discourse

Discourse means the organisation of text as a whole which is
achieved through links and connections of different kinds. This is known
as nadhm in Arabic rhetoric which Abdul Qahir AlJurjany perfected in the
5th century A.H. / 12th century A.C. The discourse structure of the
translation as a whole is good. However, there are certain translated
texts, which have discourse problems. Such problems may be either low-
level or high-level linguistic features. Tense sequence is an example of
low-level discourse which has been briefly touched upon already. Text
coherence, especially in the lengthy ones, is high-level. Here is an
example of such text which lacks coherence and/or cohesion:-
O ye who believe!

17
Take not My enemies
And yours as friends
(Or protectors)- offering them
(Your) love, even though
They have rejected the Truth
That has come to you,
And have (on the contrary)
Driven out the Messenger
And yourselves (from your homes),
(Simply) because ye believe
In Allah your Lord!
If ye have come out
To strive in My way
And to seek My Good Pleasure,
Showing friendship unto them
In secret: for I know
Full well all that ye
Conceal and all that ye
Reveal. And any of you
That does this has strayed
From the Straight Path.
(Sura 60: 1)

The reader can clearly detect that the complex sentence in italics- i.e.,
“If… secret:”- does not cohere and connect with what precedes and
follows it. Also it lacks a subject for its main clause, which is not there
anyway. In the Amana edition, this has been corrected by repetition of
the second top line of the verse and rephrasing “Showing … secret” as :
(Take them not as friends),

18
Holding secret converse
Of love (and friendship)
With them:…

This way the text becomes coherent and so connects with what precedes
and follows it nicely.
There are other similar cases. Here is another example, which is
hardly intelligible:-
1. By the (Winds) Sent Forth
One after another
(To man’s profit);
2. Which then blow violently
In tempestuous Gusts,
3. And scatter things
Far and wide;
4. Then separate them
One from another,
5. Then spread abroad
A Reminder,
6. Whether of Justification
Or of Warning-
(Sura 77: 1-6)

The problem with this translation is that it lacks coherence in the sense
that the reference of pronouns in verse 4-5 can’t be the same as those of
1-3. Winds cannot spread “Reminders” while angels can. Thus the first 3
refer to the winds whilst the last 3 refer to angels, which the translation
does not make clear. It is very confusing indeed and that is why the

19
English version lacks coherence. The translation of Part 30 of the Quran
has many similar problems, especially in the opening verses of the suras.

At the Level of Style

By style we mean the poetic, literary and formal nature of the text
as a whole. Ali presents the translation in a poetic manner, which is
manifested in the many poems in various places in every Surah, in the
arrangement of the lines of the translation such as every line begins with
a capital letter, and in the splitting of a construction (phrase, clause,
sentence) into two halves to maintain the poetic format. This method is
against the soul of the Quran itself; the Quran is not poetry at all; it is the
beautiful and majestic speech of the Lord of the worlds. Thus there is a
need to translate it beautifully and majestically but not formally
poetically. Beautiful is not necessarily always poetic.
Apart from the poetic form, the translation is not poetic at all,
strictly speaking. It lacks rhythm, rhyme and meter which are the
essentials of poetry. Indeed, in numerous places, the style is awkward.
This is because the translator most of the time translates word for word
which is evident in the usage of bracketed words which are added to
further clarify the meaning (see below).

At the Level of Translation Method

A good translation is one which expresses the same concepts, the
same ideas, using the right number of words, according to the rules of the
target language: i.e., English grammar and rhetoric (for further detail, see
Jassem and Jassem, this volume). Ali’s translation, a competent bilingual
would detect, adheres more to the Arabic form structure than to the
English one (as in, e.g., 60: 1 above). Here are a few examples:-

20
 “ ya aiyuha alladheena aamanoo ‘udhkuroo Allaha dhikran
katheera”
O ye who believe!
Remember Allah,
With much remembrance;
(Sura 33: 41)

“wa yansuraka allahu nasran ‘azeeza”

And that Allah may help
Thee with powerful help
(Sura 48: 3)

No English speaker would find the first two underlined constructions

acceptable. We have been using, hearing and reading English for over 30
years and we never came across such usage! The repetition of the noun of
the same verb is characteristic of Arabic and is known as “maf’ool
mutlaq” (absolute object) which is used for emphasis. Its proper
translation in English should use adverbs, adjectives or rephrasing. That
is, “remember Allah very much/ greatly”, “…Allah may give you a great
help”, etc.
However, sometimes Ali renders such constructions in proper
English, as in the following verse;-
“’inna fatahna laka fathan mubeena”
Verily We have granted
Thee a manifest Victory
(Sura 48: 1)

21
in which the verb and its emphatic second noun have been rephrased as
“grant victory”. This practice of arranging and ordering words English-
style Ali followed in very, very few places.
Thus, on the whole, the method is a literal one, which opts for the
closest possible Arabic equivalents in terms of the number of words and
their arrangement into an acceptable, grammatical English structure. This
practice has often resulted in an awkward English style, which calls for
extensive editing and re-writing of the whole work English-style, which
can be easily done these days.

At the Level of Writing Mechanics

By writing mechanics, we mean punctuation and spelling. In
general, this is excellently handled in the main. However, there are
countless punctuation and spelling errors and/or misprints, especially in
improperly placed bracketing (see below), which should be removed
anyway, we think.
Also there is inconsistency in punctuation. Certain words are
sometimes capitalised and sometimes normalised as in (48: 18, 35) in
which “fealty, Fealty” were thus spelled for no obvious reason.
Furthermore, sometimes certain words are missing in the translation
altogether, which is very, very rare indeed. We have already encountered
one example. Here is another:-
“falyauma la yukhrajoona minha wala hum yusta’taboon”

(From) that Day, therefore,

They shall not be taken out
Thence, nor can they
Make amends
(Sura 45: 35)

22
The missing word is the suffixed pronoun of “minha” which means “it”
and refers to “Hell, Fire” from which people shall not be taken out and
not from “that Day” as the translation incorrectly says. The proper
translation is “From it (the Fire)….”. Thus “(From)” is improperly
bracketed; what needs to be bracketed is “Fire”. In fact there is no need
for brackets at all here.
A thorough revision of the whole text is therefore required.

At the Level of Typography

On the whole, the Presidency’s edition is a very beautiful, ornate
and elegant one. It is the most ornate and colourful of all translations of
the Quran; it is a delight for the eyes to read indeed. However, with well
over 2000 pages, it is unnecessarily very bulky, which can be drastically
reduced to half that without even compromising on the ornate style. Thus
saving energy, effort, paper and money at the same time. The extent of
unused paper space is incredible which can certainly be utilised for other
more useful purposes such as enlarging the font size of the notes and so
on.

Conclusion and suggestions for Improvement

This paper has been a brief description and evaluation of the great
al-marhoom Ali’s translation of the Holy Quran as edited and revised by
the Presidency of Islamic Researches, IFTA, Call and Guidance (1410H)
principally and Amana (1989) secondarily. This evaluation is just the tip
of the iceberg; it must be followed by further research not only into this
translation but also into others, especially those produced by devout
Muslim scholars. These must be studied and compared on levels similar
to what has been described here. Of course, new levels can be added as

23
our knowledge of the world and the Quran deepens and improves. As to
the translations of non-Muslim scholars, these must be approached with
great caution. Those that attack Islam must be rejected outright, those
that translate in a faithful and neutral manner can be used- but how many
and where are they In any case, priority should be given to those whose
authors have a high competence in both Arabic and English: the higher,
the better.
Ali’s work is good in general but can be considerably improved. In
light of the above description and discussion, here are a few suggestions
and proposals that we make to those noble agencies that are concerned
with the updating and revision of his work: Some provisional and some
radical. As to the provisional suggestions, we can mention:-
1. In the area of language use, obsolete and infrequent words must be
replaced by common and contemporary words. Furthermore, the
grammar must be brought in line with contemporary usage. These two
points are very serious and can be modified very quickly, especially the
latter one. Otherwise glossaries must be provided for the average reader
who do not understand non-contemporary English, just in the same
manner as Shakespeare’s plays are glossed!
2. In the field of style, abandon the pseudo-poetic style and substitute
ordinary prose style for it. Use beautiful prose, which is neither too rosy
nor too vulgar, but half-way in-between.
3. In the realm of faulty word selections and imprecise scientific
words, these must be replaced by accurate and precise terms.
4. In the domain of spelling, edit the translation thoroughly, manually
and electronically via computerized spell-checker. Use highly competent
Arabic-English bilinguals in this respect. Nothing less will do.
As to the radical proposal, there is a need to re-write the whole
translation along the lines that have already been suggested. This is not

24
an impossible task now that there are many translations and scholars that
can be pooled together.
For this noble purpose, we propose the establishment of a panel of
experts into all fields of knowledge, who comprise translators, linguists,
literary scholars, scientists of all kinds, medical experts and legal doctors,
whose function is to produce an Authorized Translation of the Quran into
English in the same manner as King James I did for the Bible (1604-
1611). This is a huge task which only honest governments can take: It
needs money, time, sincerity and above all, a feeling of responsibility
towards the Book of Allah in order to bring mankind from darkness into
light, from violence into peace, from stress into relief, from doubt into
certainty, from destruction into salvation, and from the fire of Hell into
the bliss of Paradise.

Acknowledgement
I wish to acknowledge with thanks the fruitful comments made by Prof.
Dr Muhammad Yunus Gilani of the International Islamic University
Malaysia and the University of Kashmir.

REFERENCES
Ali, Abdullah Yusuf. 1410H. The Holy Qur’an: English Translation of
the Meanings and Commentary. Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah:
Presidency of Islamic Researches, IFTA, Call and Guidance.
_________1989. The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary
(new revised edn). Brentwood, Maryland: Amana Corporation.
_________1990. The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary.
Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf.

25
_________1991. The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, (new edition with
Revised Translation and Commentary). Brentwood, Maryland: Amana
Corporation.
Ali, Prof Ahmad. 1984. Al-Quran: A Contemporary Translation. Karachi:
Akrash Publishing.
Asad, Muhammad. 1980. The Message of the Qur’an. Gibraltar: Dar Al
Andalus.
Hamidullah, Dr. 1963. Le Saint Coran.
Irving, T. B. Dr. 1986. The Quran - The first American Version.
Brattleboro, Vermont: Amana Books
Jassem, Z. A. and Jassem, J. A. 1996. Language Adaptation. Paper
presented at International Conference: English and Islam: Creative
Encounters. International Islamic University Malaysia, 20-22 December
1996.
Maududi, Syed Abul Ala. The Meaning of the Qur’an. Lahore, Pakistan:
Isalmic Publications.
Pickthall, Marmaduke William Muhammad. 1937. Meaning of the
Glorious Qur’an. London.
Syed Qutb. 1984. In the Shade of the Quran, vol. 30. London: MWH.

26