Roundtable Report on Translating Sacred Texts

  Roundtable within the proceedings of the seminar:

 Sacred Text and Translation

Second session at the University of Arts and Humanities Cadi Ayad, Marrakech

-The intervention of Professor “Mohamed Ait Alfarrane”:

This seminar is held for the second time in response to the question of translation. As far as the translation research is concerned, the question of translatability of religious texts rises to an intensively thorny matter-similar to swimming across troubled seas- in the field of translation. The religious text is characterized by miraculous conditions, which are beyond the control of humans and their actions, so how can a translation coded in signs called language transfer to another human system the combination of experiences in the lived spirit, common belief and faith? Does the translation detract from the value of language?

If we attempt to position this issue in an identified and known level which is the translation of religious texts into other languages, we will face serious challenges at the levels of comprehension, conformity with the other, and ways of benefiting from others’ experience in research and interpretation. Within the context of translation as a science, skill and an attitude towards the world, some comments had to be made in addition to the questions that were frequently discussed in the presence of the audience.

First: Is faith a fundamental condition to the understanding of the religious text in first place, then translating it in second place? In other words, can we consider a translation whose author lacks this condition an incomplete and even deprecated one?

Second: Quran and Arabic language are bound together, the structure of the Quran as well as its operating style and delivery methods and inimitability is the same as the structure of the Arabic language, so can we look for a similar structure in the target language?  Should we believe to the fact of the impossibility of translating God’s word which is stronger than the act of translation?

Third: In terms of philosophy and abstract reasoning, is translation possible? Is translation an act done from an inside experience rather than an outside one?.

Forth: Can we act like the objective researcher and claim that the issue of inimitability of the holy Quran has prevented its apprehension since it was associated to a particular tribe which led other people to refrain from translating it? Is it possible for the Muslim reader to render only the meanings of Quran? If we translate it into another language, wouldn’t the Quran lose its powerful structures, he sound of its words, and the rhythm to which only the source language responds?

Fifth: Why the translation of Mohammed Assad has been kept unmentioned in our research context?

Sixth: So, do we need a passive translation that makes references, prioritizes meanings and removes all the characteristics of the text as in the case of the German scholar Rudy Barret?

Seventh: Frederick Rockird provided his countrymen with a poetic Quranic text in which he imitated the eloquent and rhythmic characteristics of Quran, still his translation is only known to a few German intellectuals and academicians, because first its translation has not been completed and second it didn’t respect the conditions of the source text translating what he wanted to and ignoring the rest.

Eighth: The question that arises these days to a wide range of German researchers is: what is the nature of this Quranic text we are talking about, is it a flawless Quranic text? Doesn’t the objective writer have the right to look into the history of the Quranic text as did non-Arabs when dealing with the other religious texts of their own? Such translation would not be complete in the absence of other texts or the appearance of other ones, they are cross-matching all the Quran-related texts to reconstruct the Quranic text before the act of translation.

Finally: Is it possible to segment, transfer and arrange the Holy Quran text in order to make it comprehensible and accessible to the foreign reader and finally persuade them to believe in it? The German researchers start to think about producing Quranic texts and translate them to whom he wants in accordance with the pedagogical standards of quality and the requirements of the multicultural society. Translation here is task-orientated that reduces meaning and makes it convenient to the desires of a multi-society seeking the satisfaction of everyone; this is where we can talk about translator’s violence.

These statements are aimed at enabling the professors to approach the subject, finishing the remainder of the symposium’s programme and making more questions in an attempt to approach them.

–The intervention of Professor “Dr. Abdelhak fawaz”:

In fact, the translation of Quran is an Arabic, Islamic and revival project, but how can we theorize, establish and institutionalize this work? In Jordan, as an example, an association of language translators has been founded, and many relations have been established with the international confederation of translation. till, this work has proved insufficient because of the discontinuity of efforts. Therefore, this work has to be led by a team/ group of scientists who believe in God, but how can we institutionalize such work? Should we follow the pattern of “Union of Arabic language academies” or ” Union of Arab state. “? Absolutely not, because they have proven a failure.

According to him, the academic scholars who work on the translation the Holy Quran should benefit from the experience of European countries and the European Union in the work of translation, on one hand, and they should divide the efforts into three sections, on the other hand.

First: The translator should be a well-qualified and encyclopedic person since s/he is the one who directly intervenes to direct the text either positively or negatively.

Second: The translational action including linguistic, psychological, intellectual processes, psychology, cognitive sciences, and using the artificial intelligence has to be taken into account.

Third: When the translation product came into being, the translator is no longer in power. We should, therefore, ask about his/her intention and purpose of translating, and whether s/he preserves the form and content of the source text. Future researches must focus on these dimensions to avoid any translation problems. Then, he referred to the translation movement in the Middle-east, the Maghreb, Syria and Lebanon, and he described it as being successful, giving the example of Jordan, where an association of Jordanian translators has been founded. This association offers bachelor and master degrees in translation. Therefore, it gained a reputation of academic excellence. He finally recommended that the issues related to translation should be of cultural and consultative nature so that the benefit will prevail.

–The comment of the Professor “Mohammed AitAlfarrane”

He noted, with particular appreciation of what Dr. Fawaz said, he believes that translating Quranic text and all the great texts is not a one-person task, but an institutional work in which a set of different scientific branches work together. In addition, it does not depend only on the theoretical translator, but also requires a set of sciences and skills.

–The intervention of the Professor:”Abdelkader Ghllabe”

After thanking the Organizing Committee and all the participants, the intervention of the Professor Abdelkader Ghllabe was focused on the rooting of religious texts translation. He also referred to the issue of translation philosophy which was first raised by Dr. Fawaz. He also recommended to dedicate the next seminar to the rooting of religious texts translation by concentrating on some basics formulated as questions:

• What is the religious text?
• Who is the translator?
• Who is the reader of the translation?

He concluded by suggesting two practical tasks in his terms:

– First:  the establishment of research network in that field.

– Second: the creation of special website for this network in order to facilitate communication between its members.

–The intervention of the Professor:”Mustapha Toubi”

His intervention covered a number of points such as the gist or summary translation, as well as the issue of faithfulness to the source text (les belles infidèles) as he named them. He also added that the translator of the religious text should own presuppositions in order to avoid chaos in his work, and if the translator strives for a good-quality translation, then he should consider the recipient language, and alter the source text in order to have a fluent text in the target language, but concerning the Quranic text, unfaithfulness is unacceptable.

He stated that the reconsideration of texts addressed to children and the fact that those texts should be in line with children’s level is something that would make the Quranic text a plain text similar to other human texts. Then, he made a distinction between human texts and divine texts; the translation of human texts requires faithfulness- even if the text contains some footnotes-let alone divine texts. One of his recommendations in the translation process was to adopt the concept of “fidelity” when translating a concept that should respect the ingenuity of the target language, the faithfulness means here is the faithfulness to the meaning. Concluding, he considered translation and faithfulness to be synonyms, and assumed that the reader remains free to whether accept the translation or reject it.

–The comment of the Professor “Mohamed Ait Al Farrane”

He mentioned the challenges that face the religious text in non-Muslim countries, so he suggested what follows: if we want to translate all the tolerant meanings of Islam to children, then we have to be aware of what we select for them which should be in accordance with their mental and intellectual level. They can even consider themselves as translators to introduce this topic.

–The intervention of the Professor “Mohamed Mawhoub”:

He started his intervention by mentioning some of the requirements of translation, which was meant for the Arabs since they played the role of interpreter. He believed that the consideration of the issue of translation takes us back to the founding moments of our history, that moment which marks the subordination of western people while it considered for us as an institutionalizing form of and within our culture. Then, he referred to the end of the role of Arabs in the beginning of the renaissance age after they translated the past of the West and provided the Westerners with their past. He talked about the idea that has long troubled the West which is the issue of philosophy which was put in an equal position to translation, They conflict over the same empty spot left by Aristotle who tried to identify the essence of knowledge and virtue, which led to outstanding questions that triggered problematic issues up till now, that is why we have to resume investigations in the issue of the origins of translation. Then, he moved to the next point in which he referred to the fact that non-Muslims build up certain ideologies, language and cultural misconceptions, thus the issue of translation is indeed a philosophical one because it depends on axiomatic, cultural and cognitive questions, so what concerns us most is knowing the extent to which the translator is capable of questioning her/his misconceptions. Then, he referred to the idea of Professor Abbas Arhila: Arabic language is the one translated.

He mentioned the necessity of scrambling for developments in contemporary thought in order for us to understand the translation issue as did the western since 19 century’s end with the language issue, he also referred to Haidker’s thesis in which the language becomes meditation within existence and not only a means. He also recommended us to move away from subjectivism i.e. we are faced to a co-existence which determines the translation issue. He concluded by a recommendation that the main thing that should be learnt is the thing that we believe it concerns us, moreover, staying away from what concerns us is the only way we can recognize its value.

–The comment of the Professor “Mohammed Ait Alfarrane”:

He believed that it is a positive point that linguistics has not discovered yet a shared origin of languages. Otherwise, the problems facing translation would be solved. It is also a good thing that philosophy, as such, intervenes to question everything including translation.

–The intervention of the Professor “Sara Ben Larbi”:

Her intervention revolved around the following research questions:                                                                                          -Can we establish an Arabic laboratory for a network of linguistic, forensic and cultural sciences including the rooting and identity that serve to comprehend the religious text by adopting translation comprehension strategy ?

-What were the origins of the source language?

Finally, she concluded by thanking the audience.

–The intervention of the Professor “Ali El Kassem”:

In his intervention, he proposed some suggestions to the research group represented by the Professor Abdelhamid Zahid, some of them are:

-The attempts to approach the translation issues in Arabic countries should not be limited to English, French and Spanish, but they should go beyond its narrow range to a wider one i.e. to include other languages.

-Training academic students to establish an information center about Quranic text translation by using internet. The training should also provide them with the tools necessary to gather accurate information about translation institutions in the world, existing translation projects about Quranic texts, practitioners of Quranic texts translation and specialized magazines in the field of translation. Moreover, students should be acquainted with translation associations and the laws regulating the translation process. These actions are all aimed at cooperating with translation institutions and groups in order to widen the seminar’s range about translation.

–The comment of the Professor “Mohammed Ait Al Farrane”:

He considered these suggestions to be some of the correct requirements which necessitate investing much more time, institutions commitment and individual initiatives. He also prioritized the idea that the group should work together in small, well-structured teams to   accomplish the objectives planned beforehand. He concluded by saying, “This is what actually happened.” Referring to the research group that organized the seminar.

–The intervention of the Professor “Abdellah El Haloui” :

His intervention was in the form of suggestions that started with reference to the history of the development of language and translation sciences, he thus referred to two presuppositions:

1-We belong to a developing scientific tribe, and our aim is to contribute to the development of language and translation sciences, i.e. we are faced with realities and perspectives.

2- There is a historical process which was defined by the professor as the act of observing how far things have progressed, so we can engage and keep pace.

Then he raised the following question: How can we achieve this goal-keeping pace- within the framework of linguistics and translation sciences?

He believes that the real problem is that translation theory is still locked in the paradox of translation work, and that all what was said before an attempt to answer one question which is: How can we reconcile an ideal requirement with an imposed reality? Thus, it is necessary to replace the question described as passive by an alternative one about the theory and the translation practice in order to break out of the vicious circle.

His suggested the following question: What can a translation of a text “n” reveal about the nature of language that cannot be revealed while translating other non”n” texts? Then, he proposed two answers:

• Freedom from species, and adherence to the paradox of translation work.
• The movement from translation practice level to the level of deep apprehension of translation work and science.

He concluded that the question of the paradox of translation work would make the translation theory backed up by linguistics and translation science, and this way we could discover things that would not have been revealed otherwise.

– The intervention of the Professor Abdul Hamid Zahid”

He talked about a project to translate the Holy Quran, which he described as “life project”. Therefore, academic potentials and energies should be mobilized to realize it. He gave this project the name: “The Bank chart for translating the Holy Quran.”

He considered that the Quranic text could only be understood within its context, sciences, and culture, etc. with the benefit of Western sciences, provided that they serve the text and do not damage its meanings.

He then moved on to talk about the first steps that have been accomplished in this project. He mentioned the efforts of the professor “Moulay Mustafa Abu Hazim” who carried out the collection and preparation of the list of sources and references that have been considered the keys to understanding the Quranic text. He also extolled the idea of ​​the Professor “Fawaz” that stated: This work should be within the form of an institution because it exceeded the work of more than one translator.

After that, he displayed a set of forensic and linguistic sciences, which are the keys to understanding the Holy Quran because they grew up in its lap, in addition to Arab sciences and culture.

After that, he presented an example of this from the Quran by saying:

“Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead?” He said that “eating the meat”  “أكل اللحم” could not be translated by eating the flesh of your brother (the meat here means backbiting and gossiping).

Then he proposed a recommendation – which is the core of his project – stating: That the Quran consists of about 6400 verses, each verse should be taken separately, and it should be taken into account what was said about it in the linguistic sciences, the Islamic law, and the Arab culture. And then (a storing) process for this information should be done in a computer program.

Then, he pointed out to the intervention of the professor Sarah whom he praised and considered her questions at the heart of the project which would be elaborated more in operations.

The first operation: The copying of everything that was said and written about each verse then working to translate it into English, after that submitting it to the translator or (unitive speaker) -as he is called – and it would facilitate for him many things  and shorten many ages.

The second operation: Dealing with setting priorities; adding that we had to rely on what’s called in translation theory (stratège designs) which was about: What should we copy? And what should we keep? And what we keep would serve as a supplement to the translation of the Quran. In other words, we face a translation that you will understand only in this encyclopedia and what is outside it is doomed to failure.

Also, anything translated from one verse, for example, is only ten percent of what is said about it; and if the interpreter wanted to further explore it, he should refer to all that has been said about it, because the translation into the target language is predetermined that it does not carry in its core content but bits. He concluded his speech with his readiness to discuss with anyone interested in the project.

– The intervention of the Professor “Ahmed Krome”:

After thanking the group and the audience, he talked about a previous seminar of the research group, and compared it with the current seminar.

Then, he praised the presence of elders and youth in this project; each one of the elders is representing a school of specific knowledge, philosophy, etc.

He said that the project concerned religious text rather than translation in general, and that the specifics of the religious text required much knowledge, as opposed to the texts that might abide by a field rather than the other. Among his recommendations: That such projects should be covered by the media to have an echo in the Arab world. He also praised the participation of Mashreq countries, as well as the European Union, and the Maghreb countries. Hence, this experience should be taken advantage of because there is communication and integration among the three components. Also, he praised the ambitions and ideas which should not be killed so as to lead the project and to be effective, full and accurate in its terminology, identity, and efficiency. Despite all difficulties, all these data was achieved in two meetings. He concluded with a wish: The future contributions should be of high quality. He also praised the idea of ​​the project.

–  The intervention of the Professor “Saham Fatima”:

After thanking the Organizing Committee and the participants, her intervention began with a verse from the Quran (recite in the name of your Lord who created) which reflects the teaching and learning process. She talked about the latter and how to learn a particular language that requires sensation and interaction with it by forgetting our mother tongue. Then, she talked about the translation of the plain text, and what it took for rehashing ideas, and settling one’s opinion, without considering the saying of the Holy Quran, which will not be translated correctly -according to her-. For instance, when scientists wanted to translate the Holy Quran, they only interpreted it by the Quran itself, or Sunnah, or analogy. Among her recommendations: To establish a responsible regulator examining all the Quranic translations. Also, the Quran loses its Holiness, legitimacy, specially it is the preserved book, when people pray with a translated version as happened in Turkey, for example.

– The intervention of the Professor “Walid Omari “:

After thanking the participants, he talked about the question of rooting for the translation practice. He also praised the group’s proposal and pinpointed that the translation had two phases:

– The Text analysis phase.

– Then the construction phase.

He moved on to talk about the immense translation heritage, and this practice was considered stronger than the issue of research parallel to it. He referred to “Muhammad Asad” and his translation, and then the translation of (Jack berk) and (lokerd). He considered that the human work is always imperfect and the Holy Quran remains preserved. So we should focus -in his opinion- on the positive things, and not only the negative things. In addition, we should consider how they dealt with some problems in translation and this also needed data that required an in-depth study. He also considered that the recent Holy Quran translations contained thorough theories research that are not parallel to the current theses and researches. And he asked: Why haven’t they been looked at? Then, he talked about institutionalizing the translation work and asked: What are the steps involved to establish the translation Committee? Among his recommendations: Embracing the enterprise to the translator, and supporting him until the realization of the desired level as the translation has its uniqueness and the translator does it on his own. And he concluded by the idea of the impossibility of translation, which if adopted, we will stop thinking about translation. Then he questioned: Is the translation possible? And what if it is the case?

The intervention of the Professor “Abdelkader Hamdi”:

The speech of the professor Hamdi was shedding light on some points in the interventions of some professors. He started from the German “levernr” who pointed out that: “the bunches of the general cultural imbalance will pursue the human in any translation”. Then, he moved on to the idea that (Jack Berk) translated and finished his role. We are required to consider the appearance and Allah will take charge of the essence- as he said. He also confirmed that when (Jack Berk) translated, something popped out in his mind after he had read more than twenty other translations. He quoted the saying of the latter: He spent ten years in interpretation and five years in reviewing. So he presented a translation close to the meaning of Allah’s will though this is difficult even on the interpreters, according to the professor. He carried on to clarify that the Quran when translated is nor read by Muslims who speak and master Arabic, but it is read by those who have lost connection with Arabic, or who don’t know anything about it. He also stressed on the necessity of counting the mistakes each translator made, and comparing each other to improve the translation and to contribute to its development although these errors would continue based on the different assets upon which each translator rely.

Comment of the professor Hamdi on the speech of the Professor EL Haloui :

The professor Hamdi did not agree with the professor Haloui in the idea that “we remain caught in a vicious cycle.” The professor Hamdi confirmed that this idea was not correct and as evidence was what the professors’ research papers and presentations unveiled. The religious texts as well as the other texts (literary, scientific, and doctrinal) raised particular problems. To conclude, he explained that the privacy of the religious text required special treatment in translation.

The intervention of the Professor “Almaalomi”:

The professor Almaalomi initially hoped that this scientific symposium would come up with specific opinions on the issue of translating the meanings of the Holy Quran. He insisted that translating the meanings of the Holy Quran should not be an ideological translation that stood far from the Holy Quran and Sunna’s approach. He suggested that this translation should have a primary objective which is to explain the Islam as it really is. Also this translation should be written in a clear style because we translate for non-Arabic speakers.

The Professor Almaalomi hoped that this matter would be entrusted to a group of well-known researchers who are well-versed in forensic sciences, human sciences, and foreign languages. He emphasized the need to view the translations written by the orientalists and know the errors contained therein. He concluded his interference with another proposal for trying to build a network of Quranic terms agreed upon.

The intervention of the Professor “Abbas Arhilah”:

The Professor Arhilah began by assuring that the Islam was the most powerful thing in the world because it was the one which was fought today. He also insisted that the strongest text on earth was the Holy Quran. He then started talking about the issue of the Western approach – he alluded in this regard to professor Mawhoub-. This curriculum emphasizes the need to deal objectively with texts.

The Professor Abbas Arhilah considered that dealing with the Quran objectively was impossible. There was no way for the Quran to become something and deal with it on that basis. The Professor Arhilah praised the efforts of Muslim Arab scientists and their work, and pointed out that the phrase “reconsidering the religious text”- which was already mentioned by the professor Baker Ait El Ferran- should not be taken into account because it denied and abolished the previous efforts of Muslim Arabs. He emphasized the need for diligence and he renounced the imitation that had no benefit from it. In conclusion, he wished this scientific meeting would be successful and reach the desired aims and objectives. After these words, the Professor “Sarah Ibn Arabi” presented two poems:

The first was entitled “oh my nation,” and she dedicated it to Professor Abbas Arhilah.

And the second was entitled “erupt oh volcano”, and she dedicated it to the search team in translation. After that, she gave two presents: one to Professor “Abdul Jalil Hannouch” and the other to Professor “Abdulhamid Zahid”.

The intervention of the Professor “Abd Elhaq Fawaz”:

The professor Fawaz apologized to the conference attendees for his forthcoming travel. He expressed his sincere feeling towards Morocco, which he considered as his own. Also, he thanked the conference attendees and the guests. And he confirmed that our mission as    academics was to lead the nation and accept the challenge. The greater the challenge is, the more response we could have.

The intervention of the Professor “Hassan Darir”:

The speech or intervention of the Professor Darir provided a set of recommendations or suggestions, which were the cream of the participants’ interventions in the scientific symposium. These proposals were divided, as professor Darir explained, into suggestions which concerned the organizational side of the symposium, and others related to religious text translation.

The proposals concerned the organizational side was:

• Allotting a complete and independent session to discuss issues raised in the symposium, that the time did not permit their discussion during the sessions.
• Inviting honorary figures who are specialists and devoting a separate lecture to talk about an issue related to the conference topics.
• Dividing scientific sessions according to the subject of participation, depending on the language used in the intervention.
• Demanding more precise scientific topics, and withholding the discussion of some issues that have become futile now.
• Organizing parallel translated book fairs.
• Printing all participating papers before starting distributing them to the attendees while entering the conference.
• Seeking to ensure the continuity of this meeting.
• Creating a database of lessons and research articles related to the translation of religious texts.
• Establishing a database for all interested research religious interpretation.

The other proposals that concerned the translation of religious text were:

• Nominating a group of multidisciplinary Muslims for carrying out the translation of Quran, well-known for their deep knowledge in Islamic studies, foreign languages and their enlightenment and accurate knowledge of the conditions of societies that convey the Holy Book into their own languages. This nomination should be run by a religious or even official institution.
• Realizing the goal behind the translation of the Holy Quran’s meanings into foreign languages which is to show Islam for what it is by adopting strict scientific methods.
• Gathering information about translation organizations provided that this information will be concrete in the languages spoken in the Islamic world.
• Creating a bank chart for the translation of the Quran’s meanings relied on cleaning everything that was said in the Arabic sciences and modern sciences that served the religious text.

After presenting these proposals, professor Darir noted that the research group in translation had begun supporting other professors from the university by completing a list of sources and references that were the keys to understanding the religious text which would pave the way for the translator.

To conclude his intervention, he thanked the Minister of Habous, the president of the Scientific Council, the president of Cady Ayyad University, and the dean of the faculty of Letters and human Sciences. After that, certificates were given to all participants and organizers.

The concluding intervention of the Dean Professor “Abdul Jalil Hanouch “:

At the beginning of his speech, the professor Hannoush expressed his pleasure for the success of the second symposium of the translation and the religious text, and thanked all the participants who attended the symposium. He also praised the valuable interventions and the difference among the opinions and ideas made by the participants. Indeed, this difference contributes to the enrichment of the research field. He supported the view of the Professor Walid Omari regarding the issue of translations provided by some non-Arabs about the Holy Quran. He pointed out that we should take the pros of these translations and leave the cons, without advocating destructive criticism. We should instead try to fix possible negatives. The criticism to these translations should stem from the assets of the science of translation and not just from intellectual difference or complexity.

Once again, in his concluding speech, the professor Hanouch expressed his joy and proudness of the second scientific symposium for the translation and religious text which was a great success. And he wished that the work of this symposium to be printed soon.

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.