Ali Quli Qarai, The Qur’ān with a Phrase-by-Phrase English Translation (2005)

Translations in general have been divided into two broad categories, (1) translations which aim at formal equivalence, and the so-called (2) dynamic (or functional) equivalence translations. Formal equivalence translations attempt to reproduce the formal elements of the source text including grammatical units, seek consistency of word usage, and reproduce meanings in terms of the source context. That is, they do not normally attempt to make adjustments in idiom, but rather try to reproduce such expressions more or less literally, so that the reader may be able to perceive something of the way in which the original document employed local cultural elements to convey meanings. A dynamic-equivalence translation has been defined as “the closest natural equivalent to the source language message.”¹

The second approach has an obvious advantage over the first one in that it is better suited to meet the very goal of discourse, which is communication. But it assumes that the translator can fully comprehend and fathom the intents and meanings of the original source text and that the only task that remains for him to accomplish is to find and produce the closest natural equivalent to the source language message. Such an assumption is not always warranted and it takes a simplistic view of the nature and character of discourse and meaning. There are often cases where, firstly, the real intent and meaning of the source text may be either indeterminate or it may elude the translator, and, secondly, at times there may be simply no easy and natural equivalent in the target language. However, in many cases the requirement of an easy and natural form of expression obliges the translator to make adjustments of various kinds to produce a stylistically satisfactory equivalent.

The aware reader of translated literary texts is conscious of the approximations or rather the inherent inadequacies involved in the process of translation. This inadequacy is quite evident in the case of Qur’ān translations. The best purpose a translation may serve is as a means of access to the Arabic Qur’ān itself.

Interlinear translations abound in Persian and Urdu. In fact, the interlinear approach has been the dominant practice in translations of the Qur’ān published in these languages during the last two hundred years. Recent translations in Persian show a trend away from this practice, while it is still dominant in Urdu. As these languages are written from right to left like Arabic, the interlinear format — with the Arabic text and its translation appearing in alternating lines — has been a convenient and popular way of presenting the meanings of the Qur’ānic text. This format has been very helpful for readers who do not read the Arabic Qur’ān merely for the sake of the thawāb of reciting its text, but are also eager to obtain the additional and higher benefit of understanding its meanings and reflecting upon its verses. There are many Persianand Urdu-speaking Muslims who have quite an impressive working grasp of the meanings of the Qur’ān without having undergone any formal training in Arabic grammar