This write-up investigates the interpretive usage of language in english translations the Al Fatiha taken native The koran Interpreted by Arthur Arberry and The Qur’an: a brand-new Translation by abdel Haleem. This descriptive qualitative untuk mempelajari uses Gutt’s relevance method in assessing the options made for interpretively interacting Al Fatiha’s message. The finding mirrors that Haleem’s translation is an ext interpretive with much more fashionable and also familiar structures and also words requiring lower processing efforts. The choices imply the Arberry’s version is a scholarly translation kapan Haleem’s job-related is for renowned use.

Anda sedang menonton: Terjemahan al fatihah dalam bahasa inggris

Translating spiritual texts should also consider translator’s cultural background and contextual knowledge.

Keywords: relevance, interpretive use of language, sacred text



Artikel ini meneliti penggunaan bahasa secara interpretif dalam terjemahan bahasa Inggris surah Al Fatihah yang diambil dari The memberitahukan Interpreted karya Arthur Arberry dan The Qur’an: a new Translation karya albdel Haleem. Penelitian kualitatif keterangan ini keuntungan pendekatan relevansi Gutt dalam mengkaji opsi-opsi penerjemahan yang digunakan untuk menyampaikan berita Al Fatihah secara interpretif. Temuan penelitian ini menunjukkan terjemahan Haleem lebih interpretif mencapai penggunaan struktur dan kata yang lebih tersebar luas dan mudah dipahami. Temuan tersebut also berimplikasi bahwa terjemahan Arberry bersifat akademis sementara karya Haleem bersifat populer. Menerjemahkan teks sakral also perlu memperhatikan latar belakang biakan serta pemahaman kontekstual penerjemah.

Kata kunci: relevansi, penggunaan bahasa secara interpretif, teks sakral

I. Advent

Whether or not a translate into is accurate, it have to be viewed as a setting of communication. That is a process by which what we said or wrote in a language is to express in lagi language. In translation studies, that is known as transforming resource Text (ST) into membidik Text (TT). And as a type of communication, then translation requirements to comply v communication prinsip as to develop a effective communication, one should make utterances or sentences as clear and also understandable together possible. It means that a TT should be able to represent the post or an interpretation of the ST as precise as possible. In pragmatics, seperti concept menyebutkan to the prinsip of interpretive usage of language i m sorry is then juga adopted in translation studies. Together interpretive use encounters how accurate the TT to stand for or convey the post of the ST, it would be perfectly tercapai if both texts bagikan resemblance as much as kelayakan (Gutt, 1998: 44). Hence, the interpretiveness of a TT is figured out by its derajat of same to the ST in any type of relevant aspect. As far as the rendering is relevant enough to the readers in representing the blog post of the ST, the TT can as such be reputed interpretive.

However, like various other sacred texts, there will always be a dilemma to interpret Al Quran. Translators may have actually to choose to reproduce the isi but sacrifice the style, perform the reverse or perhaps retain both the them. Tertulis in Arabic, Al Quran’s advanced stylistic features are considered rumit even by native arab speakers. Quranic language is a sort of rhymed prose with literary structures and devices. Translating Al Quran melakukan not only require phonetic competence in arab and english but juga an advanced pengetahuan in arabic syntax and also rhetoric and paling importantly, terutama Quran exegeses as the resource of referral in order to provide the accurate an interpretation of a provided Quranic expression, a an easy particle or even a preposition (Abdul-Raof, 2001: 2).

Rather than analyzing the translation of Al Quran as a whole, this belajar attempts to compare, assess and draw the end the implications of the choices made by two translations in an attempt to interpretively convey the definition of Al Fatiha. This opening sura (chapter) of Al Quran is called the mother of the scripture or Ummul Kitab because of its fundamental isi as well together its vital role in islamic rituals.

The an initial Al Fatiha translate in is taken native The memberitahukan Interpreted by Arthur Arberry, a brother orientalist. Initially published in 1955, this is the first english translation of Al Quran by a bona fide non-Muslim scholar of islamic studies and has been extensively acclaimed by pundits – an especially for its effort to closely conveying the parallel impression make by Al Quran – and seems to continue to be the reference of selection for paling academics because that the foreseeable masa depan (Mohammed, 2005). The 2nd Al Fatiha translate into is taken from The Qur’an: a brand-new Translation by M.A.S. Albdel Haleem which represents the latest technique to bahasa inggris translation of Al Quran. Together an Arab Muslim who has surely been familiar with Al Quran earlier, Haleem’s translation title “A new Translation” must certainly represent a brand-new perspective in Quranic translation. His work juga becomes one of the recent mass-market attempts come publish bahasa inggris translations of Al Quran (Mohammed, 2005). Mirroring on those factors, the belajar finds it amazing to ilustrasi out i beg your pardon translation is much more interpretive in interacting the an interpretation of Al Fatiha.


2.1. Relevance concept

The id of interpretive setting in translate in is rooted in the relevance concept in pragmatics. Therefore, in stimulate to arrive at the adequate knowledge of just how to evaluate the interpretiveness of translation, this riset would favor to propose the essentials the relevance theory as the theoretical foundation.

Relevance theory principally concerns how to develop a successful interaction by means of appropriate stimuli (either verbally or non-verbally) which then tolong the communication participants mutually come at the plan understanding. This theory kemudian sees interaction as the an outcome of the interplay between context of a communicative stimulus and also the processing initiative required come infer meaning from the stimulus (Palumbo, 2009: 100). Handling effort refers to the mental or cognitive resources compelled to procedure stimuli, the is, the derajat of relevance depends on the initiative a economic stimulation would need to procedure and on the cognitive or contextual impacts that would be gained (Allott, 2010: 166). The more precise recipients’ penafsiran about the intended meaning of a stimulus, the an ext relevant the stimulus is. A verbal memasukkan can be optimally pertinent when: (1) it permits recipients to discover the intended an interpretation without unnecessary effort; and (2) the intended an interpretation provides enough benefits to the recipients, i.e. Editing and enhancing recipients’ pengetahuan known technically as hopeful contextual effects (Gutt, 1998: 43).

Accordingly, relevance theory is relevant sufficient to be adopted in translation research studies in the irradiate of translation as an interlingually tertulis communication. Arisen by Ernest-August Gutt in his book Translation and also Relevance: Cognition and definisi kertas (1991), the relevance approach becomes far-ranging on the pokok that the success of translate in is established by how it communicates the ST message in an optimally relevant means to the TT reader and, above all, succeeds in guiding them to gain the intended penafsiran of the ST.

As the relevance technique in translation enables modifications kemudian as addition or omission in the TT to it is in optimally relevant to the readers who have berbeda cognitive backgrounds native the ST readers, that is thus interesting to see how such issue is met in the translations that a bab of Al Quran; the bible which the isi and membentuk become that is inherent and thus vital elements.

2.2. Interpretive use

As relevance theory deals with how to seek an optimal relationship in communication, the is because of this concerned with how the interaction participants usage language in one optimally appropriate way. Follow to this theory, there space two settings of using language:

1) Descriptive use once it is plan to it is in taken as true of a state the affairs;

2) Interpretive use as soon as it is intended come represent maafkan saya someone stated or thought (Gutt, 1998: 44).

Descriptive usage occurs when, because that example, someone produces an utterance come relevantly stand for a certain situation according to apa he/she factually grasps. Top top the other hand, interpretive usage occurs when someone supplies an utterance come relevantly represent or resembles another’s pikiran or utterance without being distorted through his/her very own thought. Accordingly, as soon as both space employed to stand for another’s komandan or utterance, interpretive utterance would be more unbiased than descriptive one dari the latter would administer an utterance as an ostensibly factual description of the means it is but paling probably fail come convey the to plan interpretation.

Based on the concept above, translation falls naturally under the interpretive use as it is intended to restate maafkan saya someone said or komandan in one language into lagi language (Gutt, 1998: 46). This process is done so that the TT resembles the ST in pertinent ways. Hence, the keyword is the derajat of “resemblance” in between the ST and the TT. Seperti resemblance can be assessed by the degree of explicit and also implicit contents or explicature and also implicature they share (Gutt, 1998:45).

As proclaimed earlier, the resemblance can not be precisely alike unless the original utterance is stood for by a direct quotation. Hence, the derajat of resemblance in interpretive usage would differ as there can be addition, omission, paraphrasing or also literal reproduction in the TT. This id has kemudian led to the dichotomy of translate into strategy: direct translation and also indirect translation. The former pays lot attention to the resemblance (faithfulness) as very closely as mungkin to the ST whereas the last allows an ext elaboration to satisfy the relationship to the TT readers. Seperti characterization synchronizes with Vinay and Darbelnet’s categorization of translation measures in which direct translation takes the membentuk of borrowing, calque (borrowing the expression membentuk but translating its elements literally) and literal translation while oblique (indirect) translation contains transposition (replacing indigenous class), modulation (change of suggest of view), equivalence (use of completely different stylistic and also structural methods) and adaptation (creating new situation/expression that can be taken into consideration as gift equivalent) (1995: 30-39).

Although both deserve to be employed di bawah interpretive framework, in practice, hatim and Munday propose the they are not an either clear-cut choice but quite the two ends that a continuum (2004: 62). The is a logical repercussion of the relevance variability in translation. In stimulate to be optimally pertinent to the ST, the is, the sepenuhnya commitment to kasar interpretive resemblance, particularly when penanganan with a sensitive or spiritual text in which membentuk and isi are equally crucial, direct translation candlestick to work-related well in this respect (Gutt in dimiliki and Munday, 2004: 63). However, the is crucial to be afflicted with in mind that the significance of translate into is to convey the intended meaning (interpretation) of the ST as very closely as possible. Therefore, the is amazing to see how the two bahasa inggris translations that Al Fatiha anticipate the form-content dilemma.


This study is a descriptive qualitative research darimana it attempts to collect, categorize, describe and also assess data the a untuk mempelajari in the membentuk of groups of native indicating interpretive use in translations of a bab of Al Quran. The data space two translation versions of the 7 verses consisted of in Al Fatiha.

The data resources are the sura Al Fatiha consists of 7 verses and its two translation execution in english each taken native The Koran interpreted by Arthur Arberry and also The Qur’an; A new Translation by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. As relevance concept recognizes translate into as normally a type of interlingual interpretive use, all translation verses in the TTs are considered the data the the research since they are the outputs the interpretive usage of language.

The data are then analyzed by employing comparative technique. Each verse that the TTs is contrasted to determine the distinctions in calculation the matching verse of the ST. Next step is assessing the choices made in every verse the the TTs in order come ensure that it relevantly and also interpretively interpret the corresponding verse that the original. The would also involve the identification of translate into strategies digunakan by every TT. Sejak translating a solitary verse may involve much more than one strategy, a verse might be divided into smaller parts where every of them can stand together a solitary meaningful unit. That can take forms of word, phrase, clause or also sentence. Hence, the differences between two translators in connecting the propositions of a verse can be discovered. Final step is illustration conclusions about which translation optimally utilizes the interpretive use to relevantly interact the intended definition of the initial and tambahan the effects of the choices they make to interpretively interpret Al Fatiha.


4.1. Finding

As declared in ar 3, the table below presents the comparison between the ST and also the TTs top top the city basis. The distinctions occur between TT 1 and TT 2 in calculation the equivalent original verses room typed in bold.

Table 1. Compare of every verse that the ST and the TTs

ST (Arabic)TT 1 (Arberry’s Translation)TT 2 (Haleem’s Translation)
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِIn the surname of God, the Merciful, the CompassionateIn the name of God, the mr of Mercy, the Giver the Mercy!
اَلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلۡعَـٰلَمِينَPraise belongs to God, the mr of all Being,Praise belongs come God, Lord of the Worlds,
اَلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِthe All-merciful, the All-compassionate,the mr of Mercy,

the Giver the Mercy,

مَـٰلِكِ يَوۡمِ ٱلدِّينِthe master of the day of Doom.Master of the work of Judgement.
إِيَّاكَ نَعۡبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسۡتَعِينُThee just we serve, come Thee alone us pray because that succour.It is You us worship; the is You us ask because that help.
اِهۡدِنَا ٱلصِّرَاطَ ٱلۡمُسۡتَقِيمَGuide us in the straight path,Guide united state to the right path:
صِرَاطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنۡعَمۡتَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ غَيۡرِ ٱلۡمَغۡضُوبِ عَلَيۡهِمۡ وَلَا ٱلضَّآلِّينَthe course of itu whom you hast blessed, not of itu against whom Thou arts wrathful, no one of itu who room astray.the route of those You have actually blessed, those that incur no anger and also who have actually not unable to do astray.

The table reflects that the translation differences selalu occur in every verse encompassing lexical and also syntactic choices which suggest berbeda semantic meaning. To identify how itu differences affect the degree of interpretive use, below are the detailed analyses of the translations of every verse.

a) Verse 1

If the an initial part (بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ) is rendered word because that word, it would median “with/in surname of God”. It looks indistinguishable to the Trinitarian formula in Christianity (i.e. in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit). Arberry and Haleem seem to agree with milik mereka functional parallelism as opened prayer. Thus, both translators take on the initial struktur of the Trinitarian formula (in the name of) so that it would certainly be easily recognized by the english speaking rakyat instead of various other unfamiliar structures. Back the prefixed preposition بِ in arab has a range of meanings: by, with, in, at, and also so on, in the name of formula is the closest tantamount which best represents the meaning and duty of the original. The enhancement of definite article before name is kemudian the repercussion of relevance factor to consider to the TTs readers even though the original does not usage definite post ال sebelum اِسْم. Both translators also use the word God together the identical of Allah which consists of two units: definite write-up al- and ilah (god) so the the literal an interpretation is the god. The indigenous God is a relevant an option in order to let the TTs readers recognize that Muslims juga worships the same divine being as the Jews and Christians and also that Islam is the extension of oh my gosh revelation after ~ Jesus (Mohammed, 2005). Hence, in this part, both rental equivalence (indirect translation) through adopting resolved expression.

Difference occurs as soon as translating the succeeding part. Arberry looksٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ and also ٱلرَّحِيمِ as two identified words. Back they function as nouns (as the names of God), they room both adjectives. Hence, he choose adjectival equivalents in english (merciful and compassionate) through definite articles the like the original has. In this way, there is a formal correspondence between the ST and the TT. In fact, rahmān and rahīm are cognates which derive from the same root رَحِمَ (rahīma) whose an interpretation in thesaurus is “to it is in merciful” or “have mercy upon” (Penrice, 1991: 56). It menunjukkan that they room etymologically related. Semantically, rahmān is a kind of mercy owned by God just for every gift in every world while rahīm is one attribute deserve to be one of two people possessed by God or any being to show or have actually mercy upon (Shihab, 2007: 38). Consequently, Arberry’s choice of not using the parallel cognates in bahasa inggris would be semantically problematic. The word compassionate denotes feeling or pameran sympathy for people who are suffering (Hornby, 2005: 307). Kemudian word would certainly limit the variety of mercy presented by the word rahīm. It would imply that oh my gosh mercy is only upon itu who room suffering or have actually misfortune.

In this case, Haleem agrees that the semantic connection betweenرَحۡمَـٰن and also رَحِيم would certainly be shed if they room rendered into pairs of indigenous from different roots seperti as merciful-compassionate, gracious-merciful or beneficent-merciful despite milik mereka synonymous meanings (2001: 16). Accordingly, he transposes the word class of adjectival native Rahmān and Rahīm into in the name phrases mr of Mercy and Giver of Mercy. Such choices much more comprehensively accommodate the cognate relationship between Rahmān and Rahīm. He also adds one exclamation note (!) indicating the reciting this verse acts as an invocation come God. Here, Haleem represents the intended penafsiran of rahmān and also rahīm more interpretively.

b) verse 2

Literally, the initial verse reads the praise and also thanks (be) to God, lord of the worlds. arabic linguists awareness the two letters (ا) and (ل) as the prefix come حَمْدُ execute not simply act as a definite article but juga function as al-istighraq i m sorry denotes “all” (Shihab, 2007: 27). Yet, both translators it seems to be ~ to think about the facet of relevance to the TTs readers. Lock omit the definite article along with al-istighraq concept and apply biblical style. Every time words praise wake up in the Bible, no matter apa function and an interpretation it carries, it selalu stands on its very own and tidak pernah to it is in accompanied by any kind of determiner, for examples: Praise be to the God and Father the our lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:3); Praise the Lord, my soul, all my inmost being, worship his divine name (Psalms 103:1) (Popular scriptures Verses about Praise, 2009). Sebagai translation strategy is juga included as an equivalence procedure as it deals with fixed expression.

As proclaimed above, حمد in arabic means praise and thanks. That is why orthodox translate in of Al Quran renders it as all the praises and also thanks be to Allah (Khan and Al-Hilali, 1998: 1). Yet, kemudian kind of calculation looks redundancy in English. Arberry and Haleem realize this dilemma and do no compel to execute the very same way. Lock seem come realize that the paling relevant means is to narrow the word right into one solitary sense: prayer (Haleem, 2011: 17). Then, the use of belongs come instead the be to indicates that the intended definition of لِ in لِلَّهِ is “belongs to” or “is early out to” which means the verse together a penjelasan and/or affirmation, rather than a tentative wish favor the good-bye “be” in “praise be to him” (Haleem, 2011: 17). In this case, both translators apply modulation procedure (semantic modification).

As because that the second component of the city (رَبِّ ٱلۡعَـٰلَمِينَ), both accurate render رَبِّ literally together Lord. Yet, there is a slight distinction in calculation .العلمين Arberry provides it as all being which may imply that oh my god authority end animate and invisible creatures only, not consisting of inanimate things sebagai as air, earth, oceans, solar system, etc. In fact, the initial semantically method worlds; the plural form of عَالَمٌ definition a dunia (Penrice, 1991: 99). In this case, Haleem’s translation is much much more interpretive by using literal translation: Lord that the worlds. The addition of definite short article in front of words Lord in Arberry’s translation deliberately wants to signify or emphasize that it is God as the Lord. Top top the various other side, Haleem does not see it together necessary dari the native Lord through the letter “L” capitalized has jelas conveyed seperti concept. Moreover, the ST itself does not connect definite write-up اَلْ to the word رَبِّ either.

c) verse 3

Although this city repeats the second part of verse 1, each translator treats the differently. Haleem instantly repeats the totality phrases the the very first verse: the mr of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy. He proposes that the repetition functions to emphasize this epithet i m sorry is central to the description of God in this sura (Haleem, 2011: 18). There is no option however to repeat it completely. Hence, the transposition strategy is repeated.

On the various other side, Arberry look at this verse more than hanya a repetition for emphasis. Rather, this verse states the most fundamental attributes of God in an ext detail. Oh my god mercy and also compassion room in the highest degree that nothing compares to His. Hence, God is the all-Merciful, the all-Compassionate.

Both alternatives might bring different implications. In Arberry’s version, this city becomes a bit different from city 1 by adding the combining membentuk all-. Here, over there is a modulation the semantic function of the city (from abstrak to much more concrete or thorough description). Yet, contextually, also without addition of any corresponding combining particle like all- in English, al-Rahmān al-Rahīm in arabic already imply the incomparability of god’s mercy and also compassion. Therefore, the is not crucial to include or change the calculation of al-Rahmān al-Rahīm as already appear in the first verse. In addition to semantic problematic an option made by words compassionate, Arberry appears to much less interpretively resemble the initial verse structurally.

d) verse 4

Both translators agree to literally translate the native مَـٰلِكِ together Master sejak the arab word in this context refers to the one that is able to regulate or is mr over miscellaneous (Penrice, 1991: 140). Yet, Arberry perceives the it is necessary to add definite article the in order come more menonjol the implication the it is God that is the Master. For Haleem, this city acts the very same as the ahead one: the use of capital letter the “M” because that Master currently signifies such interpretation as well as the sebenarnya that the initial verse in Arabic melakukan not use definite short article اَلْ either.

The difference occurs in dealing with the noun expression yaumi al-dīn. This phrase consists of 2 words: يَوۡمِ (yaumi) literally way “day” and also ٱلدِّينِ (al-dīn) method “the Judgment.” The latter has actually the exact same root with words دَيْنٌ means a utang and دِيْنٌ way obedience or judgment (Penrice, 1991: 50). Kapan Haleem provides it as the day of Judgment, Arberry opts to translate it as “the work of Doom.” one of two people of lock contextually mengacu pada to the same object: the Doomsday or the work of referee or the end of all material and also spiritual human beings followed through resurrection native the dead and every being will be judged through God. Such parallel eschatological ide between Judaism, Christianity and Islam is saya mengakui by both translators. In this case, Haleem opts to usage a straight (literal) translation while Arberry employs indirect translate into (modulation). Despite lihat different approach, both success to stand for the intended an interpretation of the initial verse in relevant method to the TTs readers.

e) verse 5

The noticeable distinction in translating this city is the syntactic choice. In Arberry’s translation, the TT attempts to very closely resemble the syntactic structure of the initial in Arabic. He applies the vocabulary calque procedure by placing the straight object in ~ the start of the clauses:

iyyā-ka na’budu wa iyyā-ka nasta’inu.

Thee only we serve, to Thee alone we pray for succour.

The suffix pronoun ka means “you” together the direct object is attached come the bound particle iyyā to syntactically membantu the suffix pronoun duty as the straight object. The iyyā itself does not have a true semantic definition in arabic (Abu-Chacra, 2007: 94). It means that apa the original verse conveys is to emphasize the it is God the we serve or worship. To do the TT yes, really convey the intended interpretation, Arberry adds words only to the first clause and also the word alone come the 2nd one to dandan the arti of the word “Thee” in the intended definition of this verse. On the various other hand, Haleem opts to apply the clefting structure i.e. It is friend we worship; It is girlfriend we ask because that help. Either Arberry or Haleem precisely represents the same meaning and conveys the intended interpretation. Yet, stylistically, the choices Arberry takes are frequently represent literary struktur and archaism which sounds old-fashioned conversely, Haleem’s cleft structure is much more fashionable. In kondisi of translation strategy, Arberry obviously employs straight translation, i.e. Get loan the expression membentuk but kemudian translating each of its element literally (calque) ketika Haleem uses indirect one (transposition or change of syntactic structure).

Arberry’s selection (we serve) and also Haleem’s selection (we worship) in translating na’budu does not make ambiguity darimana the initial word is undoubtedly rooted from the word عَبَدَ which has actually a selection of meaning, however primarily way “to worship, come serve, come adore” (Penrice, 1991: 94). The problematic facet is the difference in translating nasta’inu. It is rendered together “we look for for succour” in Arberry’s and also “we ask because that help” in Haleem’s. Return the usage of “succour” is more poetic 보다 “help”, it does not assure that it would certainly convey the an exact interpretation. Succour semantic means help to somebody that is experiencing or having difficulties (Hornby, 2005: 1533). Using seperti word would then limit God’s help which is only given to those who room suffering while in kebenaran every being melakukan need His help in any kind of circumstance. Therefore, the use of “ordinary word” like “help” would certainly encompass any situation and also condition, in hardship or prosperity. In other words, Haleem renders this verse much more interpretively (by being more literally) while Arberry – penampilan modulation – often tends to emphasize the prettiness that words which a little bit distorts the meaning.

f) city 6

In Arabic, the word اِهۡدِنَا is derived from the root هَدَي meaning “to lead in the best way” or “direct aright” once it is paired with the preposition لِ (to) or اِلىَ (into) (Penrice, 1991: 153). Words اِهۡدِنَا is the second person masculine singular imperative verb who implicit topic is God (The Quranic arabic Corpus, 2009). And the suffix pronoun نَا denotes “us”. Hence, words اِهۡدِنَا implies a request to God because that guidance to the straight/right path (ٱلصِّرَاطَ ٱلۡمُسۡتَقِيمَ). However, the initial verse does not usage prepositions لِ (to) or اِلىَ (into) after words اِهۡدِنَا (guide us). It suggests that the requesters (i.e. Muslims) have already been on the straight path (Islam) yet they still require guidance all the method through until they ultimately and also safely enter its end: heaven (Shihab: 2007: 66).

The choices made by Arberry and Haleem in translating this verse then make the difference. Return both attempt to render the verse literally (directly), Arberry cleverly copes through the absence of the preposition اِلىَ in the original. That adds the preposition in after the phrase guide us come convey the intended penafsiran to the reader in English. ~ above the contrary, Haleem bag the verb guide with the preposition to. Such choice would consequently imply that embracing Islam has actually not been on the right path. Kemudian interpretation deviates indigenous the original. Therefore, in kondisi of interpretative use, Arberry exceeds Haleem in this verse.

g) city 7

Stylistic distinction occurs in translating صِرَاطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنۡعَمۡتَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ where Arberry has tendency to apply archaic style ketika Haleem comes with much more fashionable words. They also omit the prepositional phrase عَلَيۡهِمۡ literally means on them in order no to it is in so redundant and also thus accomplish the relevance to english style. However, both translations syntactically and semantically accordingly represent the original: penampilan perfect tense building صِرَاطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنۡعَمۡتَ = the path of those Thou hast blessed = the path of itu You have actually blessed. In this case, lock both employ straight translation with the spirit of faithfulness.

Meanwhile, castle treat the next part differently. Kapan being much more archaic, Arberry attempts come literally resemble the struktur of the original and follow the semantic point of watch (negation). It begins with words not together the equivalence to غَيۡرِ to do the succeeding noun phrases: al-maghdhūbi (those against whom Thou art wrathful) and also al-dhāllīn (those who space astray) as the clear opposites of what is stated earlier: alladzīna an’amta alayhim (those thou hast blessed). On the other hand, Haleem omits the word not (غَيۡرِ) in ~ the start of the phrase and also changes kemudian point of view right into those that incur no anger and also who have not unable to do astray. Through this rendering, Haleem’s translate in still mengacu pada to the type of orang mentioned earlier in this city (people who have been blessed). In fact, this verse layout actually make the efforts to make opposition between those who obtain God’s grace and wicked and also lost people whose course must tidak pernah be followed. Hence, Haleem’s calculation indirectly overlooks the other teams of people (those who incur wrath and those who have actually gone astray).

However, the use of Thou to describe God in Arberry’s translation in rendering al-maghdhūbi remains problematic. In Arabic, it is a passive participle literally means itu who earn upset which melakukan not exactly cite who precisely gets angry. The is why in islamic theology, any an unfavorable attribute is not claimed to be attributed come God (Shihab, 2007: 75). In this case, adding second pronoun Thou or You together in Arberry’s version would distort the to plan interpretation while Haleem’s translation goes in line through the original (omitting the subject Thou or You). Overall, both translators fail to perfectly stand for the meaning of this city in interpretive way since each employs problematic selections (the use of Thou and point-of-view modulation).

4.2. Discussion

In general, the finding reflects that Haleem’s translate into of Al Fatiha is an ext interpretive than Arberry’s. The the seven verses, Haleem only fails to be interpretive in translating city 6 and also 7. In kapak of translate in strategy, the finding juga reveals that whatever strategy they usage (either direct or indirect) does not determine the melakukan of interpretiveness. Both approaches have the right to be used in order to interpretively represent the intended an interpretation of the ST. The point is how exact the info is communicated to the readers.

In quantity, Arberry applies more indirect translate in (6 times) than Haleem (5 times). He juga uses straight translation (5 times) much more than Haleem (4 times). However, the finding shows that Haleem’s work is more appropriate to stand for the definition of Al Fatiha. Semantically, Haleem’s translation can be more easily construed by the bahasa inggris speaking readers. This coincides with the aturan of relationship in translation. That is mainly the an effect of Haleem’s fashionable style in translating the seven verses.

Compared to Arberry’s archaic style and also literary minded approach, Haleem’s choices (structures and word choices) would be more accessible come the readers to grab the intended meaning with reduced processing effort. Words such as Lord that the human beings instead that Lord of every Being and help instead the succour more closely represent maafkan saya Al Fatiha means to say.

Another difference between these 2 translators is the way they interpretively translate the verses. Considering his approaches, specifically for city 1, 5 and also 7, it is clear that Arberry moves towards the formal post end. He uses the parallel adjectives for اَلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ: the Merciful, the Compassionate return morphologically such choices would loose the connection in between the 2 words in Arabic. He juga attempts to replicate the ST construction structure. For example, iyyā-ka na’budu wa iyyā-ka nasta’inu is calculation in english as Thee just we serve, come Thee alone us pray for succour. The straight object is inserted at the start of the clauses, comparable to the original verse. The very same case tambahan happens to translating verse 7 in which Arberry uses negation structure. With those sophisticated choices, this translate in would require much higher processing initiatives to comprehend, specifically for the masses. Arberry’s method is relatively intended for academic purpose. The is why his occupational is commonly acclaimed by intellectuals (Mohammed, 2005).

On the various other hand, Haleem chooses to move away from the formal correspondence. It cannot be disconnected from the fact that his work is just one of the paling recent mass-market attempts come publish an english translation of the Al Quran (Mohammed, 2005). By transposition and modulation, the is assertive that the structural constructions the the original should not be necessarily reproduced in english as they would certainly generate extraterrestrial structures. As much as the intended meaning can be fine conveyed, Haleem is willing to apply word class transposition, structure changes and even semantic point of see modulation. It shows up in the translations of verse 1, 3, 5 and 7. However, his modulation options for city 6 and 7 could distort the to plan interpretation.

The finding also leads come the notion that actually itu translations represent different segments the people. Arberry’s version appears to translate Al Fatiha from the non-Muslim and non-Arab perspective while Haleem’s translation lot carries islam theological principles and Arab allude of view. For instance, in translatingٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ, Haleem’s calculation is based on arabic morphological facet so that the connection between al-Rahmān and also al-Rahīm would certainly be retained, the element which Arberry has actually overlooked.

In other an essential cases, Arberry tambahan fails to accommodate the meaning of nasta’inu in city 5. The word succour he offers would kemudian narrow the keanggunan of God to itu who space suffering. It have the right to be interpreted that as a Christian, Arberry might be influenced by Christian theological values in which Jesus is perceived to much champion the poor or lowly rakyat rather than the wealthy ones; things that Jesus preached during the bersejarah Sermon top top the Mount. In fact, seperti value is inconsistent to islam principles which believe that anyone is equal sebelum God and also the tingkat of piety is the only variable that buatlah the difference. The exact same case tambahan occurs in translating the word ٱلۡعَـٰلَمِينَ in city 2. In city 7, Arberry juga assigns the attribute wrath ~ above God as if the one who is upset is God kapan in fact, Quranic exegeses as well as Haleem himself maintain that any an unfavorable attributes must not be assigned come God.

Despite Haleem’s less interpretive approach in rendering city 6 and also 7, his social background is influential for his benefit. As an Egyptian native, Haleem has internalized Arab society including its language and also religion. Having actually been a hafiz (Al Quran memorizer) sejak childhood, he to be educated at Al Azhar University, Cambridge University and received professorship of islamic Studies at college of London (Haleem, 2005). With such CV, Haleem’s credentials space complete. On the other side, in addition to studying and receiving professor the Arabic title at Cambridge University, Arberry is a british orientalist who spent some year serving as professor of classics at Cairo university (Mohammed, 2005). However, as a Muslim, Haleem has acquainted through Islam and also Al Quran earlier than Arberry. Sebagai factor seems to be crucial enough the eventually bekerja untuk a distinction to the translations castle produce.


From the finding and also discussion, there are some conclusions come draw. First, the comparison mirrors that Haleem’s english translation of Al Fatiha is overall an ext interpretive than Arberry’s version. Back indirect translation is much more dominantly tangan kedua by both translators, the riset reveals that any kind of kind of translate into strategy (either straight or indirect) does not identify the tingkat of interpretiveness as long as the rendering precisely conveys the information and meaning to the readers.

Second, with much more fashionable and also familiar structures and words, Haleem’s selections closely adhere to the principle of relevance together his rendering demands much lower processing initiatives than Arberry’s archaism and also literary style. This allude has disutradarai to the implication that Arberry’s translation moves towards formal ends however in some elements overlooks the intended meaning of the original. ~ above the contrary, Haleem’s fashionable options indicate his translation moves far from formal correspondence through the ST yet are able to precisely interact the article of the original, except the city 6 and 7.

Third, the finding juga has implication the each translation targets different segment the readers. Arberry’s archaic and also literary layout would fairly be suitable for itu with sufficient knowledge background and also information in theology, particularly Islam, seperti as academics, theologians, courtesy of the choices like words succour, every Being, Merciful and Compassionate which paling probably create biases or lebar interpretation. Sebagai translation can as such be categorized as a scholarly translation. Together for Haleem’s translation, that light and fashionable choices might be intended for mass-market purpose and ordinary people. Therefore, his translation have the right to be categorized as a popularized translation.

In relation to the critical value of spiritual or perceptible texts kemudian as Al Quran, this belajar suggests that translating such texts should take into consideration two factors that potentially affect the translators. An initial is cultural background. Back Arberry and Haleem space both bona fide scholars who excel at islam Studies and Arabic, milik mereka religious lift respectively as a non-Muslim British and an Egyptian-born Muslim are portrayed in the translations that Al Fatiha castle produce. As far as the rendering save up through relevance aturan and convey the post accurately, it should not be a concern. That would hanya be worrying once it leads to distortion of the message.

Another variable is contextual knowledge. Translate into of Al Quran should no be loosely connected with islamic theology. As the tertinggi source of islamic teachings, its single verse can have general definition and might need come be construed by lainnya verse and/or prophetic tradition (hadith). Hence, any type of attempt that translating the holy book would much better consult reputable Quranic exegeses. Otherwise, the intended meaning of Al Quran would not be stood for interpretively.


Abdul-Raof, Hussein. 2001. Qur’an Translation: Discourse, Texture and also Exegesis. Oxford: Routledge

Abu-Chacra, Faruk. 2007. Arabic: vital Grammar. Oxon: Routledge

Allott, Nicholas. 2010. Key terms in Pragmatics. London: Continuum

Arberry, Arthur J. 1996. The menginformasikan Interpreted. Brand-new York: Touchstone

Gutt, Ernst-August. 1998. Pragmatic facets of Translation: part Relevance-Theory

Observations, in Leo Hickey (ed.), The Pragmatics the Translation, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 41-53.

Lihat lainnya: Cara Membuat Guru Jatuh Cinta Pada Muridnya, Youtubers Malaysia

Haleem, M.A.S. Abdel. 2005. The Qur’an: A brand-new Translation. Oxford: oxford University Press

Haleem, Muhammad Abdel. 2011. Understanding the Quran: Themes and also Styles. London: I.B. Tauris

Hatim, Basil and also Munday, Jeremy. 2004. Translation; one Advanced source Book. New York: Routledge

Hornby, A.S. 2005. Oxford advanced Learner’s Dictionary: 7th Edition. Oxford: oxford University Press

Khan, Muhammad Muhsin and Al-Hilali, Muhammad Taqiuddin. 1998. The Noble Qur’an: The bahasa inggris Translation that the Meanings and Commentary. Medina: king Fahd Complex

Mohammed. Khaleel. 2005. Assessing bahasa inggris Translations the the Qur’an. The tengah East Quarterly, Vol. 12 numberi 2, pp. 58-71 recall September 28, 2015 native

Palumbo, Giuseppe. 2009. Key terms in translation Studies. London: Continuum

Penrice, John. 1991.  A Dictionary and Glossary the the memberitahukan with Copious

Grammatical References and also Explanatory of the Text. Delhi: Adam Publishers and Distributors

Popular bible Verses around Praise. 2009. Retrieved march 25, 2016 indigenous

Shihab, M. Quraish. 2007. Tafsir Al-Mishbah: Pesan, terkesan dan Keserasian Al-Qur’an Volume 1. Tangerang: Lentera Hati

The Quranic arabic Corpus – word by word Grammar, Syntax and membentuk of the divine Quran. 2009. Recall April 02, 2016 native

Vinay and also Darbelnet. 1995. Comparative Stylistics of perancis and English; a Methodology because that Translation. Amsterdam: man Benjamin.