Why Translate Classical Islamic Books?
Responses to the five most common objections against translating the great works of Islamic heritage.
An Essential Endeavour
The translation of major classical Islamic works, such as the Tafsir of at-Tabari or the Majmu' al-Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyya, sparks debate. Is it legitimate? Is it even desirable?
One distinction must be made from the outset. Translating the Quran and translating a scholarly work belong to two different orders. The Quran, as revelation, is the Arabic text itself, and its translation conveys its meanings while keeping the status of a commentary. Works of tafsir, fiqh or fatwas, for their part, are human productions, however eminent they may be. Ibn Taymiyya stated this distinction clearly. It removes a common confusion: translating a religious work in no way changes the status of the revealed text.
“The word Quran designates both the wording and the meaning: it applies to the two together. This is why, when a commentator comments on it and a translator translates it, neither his commentary nor his translation is called Quran.”
Ibn Taymiyya, Majmuʿ al-Fatawa, p. 2980This page examines five recurring criticisms and answers them by drawing on the classical tradition, and more particularly on the work of Ibn Taymiyya.
Translation Discourages Arabic Learning
Translating major Islamic texts into another language would discourage readers from learning Arabic, the original language of the Quran and the Islamic sciences. If everything is available in translation, the motivation to study Arabic would disappear.
The central place of Arabic in Islam is not in doubt, and Ibn Taymiyya himself writes that the Arabic language is part of the religion. The question must, however, be posed precisely: does its in-depth study fall upon each Muslim individually, or upon the community as a whole?
Ibn Taymiyya answers this question clearly. He places the in-depth learning of Arabic among the communal obligations (fard kifaya), those that fall upon the community as a whole without burdening each individual taken separately (fard ʿayn). When the scholars, the students and the translators fulfil it, the rest of the believers are relieved of it.
He goes further. In Al-Jawab as-Sahih, he describes the general pattern of all revelation: the Messenger is sent in the language of his people in order to explain it to them, and that explanation then reaches other peoples either through their own language or through translation. He returns to this alternative several times, describing the believer able to know what he has been commanded by learning the language or through someone who translates it for him, then speaking of an access obtained through translation or by another means, and finally of an access open through several paths. What is required of the individual is access to the meaning, and the Arabic language is one of its paths.
The objection therefore turns against the very doctrine it invokes. Restricting translation in the name of Arabic closes one of the two paths that the community has the duty to keep open. Arabic remains the source language and the reference, and translation remains a legitimate path of access for the one who cannot take the first.
In practice, translation and the learning of Arabic nourish one another. Reading a translated text often awakens the desire to move towards the Arabic original and to undertake its study.
“The learning of Arabic is a communal obligation (fard kifaya).”
Ibn Taymiyya, Ar-Radd ʿala al-Mantiqiyyin, p. 178“They are able to know what He has commanded them, either by learning His language, or through one who translates it for them.”
Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Jawab as-Sahih, p. 491These Works Are Too Complex for Non-Arabic Speakers
Classical Islamic works are reputed to be complex. Translated, they would be unreadable or a source of confusion.
The complexity of these works appears in two forms. The first is linguistic and lies in vocabulary, syntax and the cross-references between texts. The second is disciplinary and lies in legal methodology, the hierarchy of evidence, the differences between schools and the context of fatwas. Translation reduces the first form of complexity, while the second remains.
On the substance, Ibn Taymiyya reasons in the opposite direction to this objection. In Al-Jawab as-Sahih, he observes that the secular sciences such as medicine, grammar and arithmetic are freely translated from one language to another, and that the Arabs themselves drew benefit from this.
He then draws a decisive argument from it. If knowledge upon which neither the happiness of the hereafter nor salvation depends is translated without hesitation, how could one refuse to translate the sciences upon which salvation itself depends? For Ibn Taymiyya, the higher the stakes of a text, the more pressing the duty to translate it. The gravity of the subject argues in favour of translation.
Disciplinary complexity, for its part, exists just as much in Arabic. A collection of fatwas read without training risks being misunderstood, in its original language as much as in translation. This risk belongs to the nature of the subject matter, and translation merely makes it visible to a new audience.
The way to handle this complexity meets a distinction set out by Ibn Taymiyya. He describes three levels in the translation and explanation of a text: rendering the word by an equivalent, representing the meaning with glosses and analogies, then establishing that meaning through demonstration and proof. A translation that genuinely seeks to convey the meaning to the audience it addresses already reaches the second level, since Ibn Taymiyya counts glosses and analogies among what completes the translation itself. The more developed explanatory work, which expands contextualisation and demonstration, then falls to teachers, institutes and publishing houses.
“If this holds for things upon which neither the happiness of the hereafter nor salvation from punishment depends, how could it be forbidden, for the sciences upon which that happiness and that salvation depend, that they be transposed from one language to another?”
Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Jawab as-Sahih, p. 457Translation Could Confuse the General Public
Translating complex theological or juridical discussions could sow confusion in the general public's religious understanding.
Pedagogical prudence is a recognised value of the tradition. ʿAli ibn Abi Talib advised speaking to people according to their capacity for understanding. This advice concerns the manner of teaching and transmitting, and it does not close access to the texts themselves.
On the question of access, Ibn Taymiyya's doctrine leads to the conclusion opposite to that of the objection. He establishes that every believer needs the continuous mediation of the scholars to grasp the meaning of the Book and the Sunna. This holds even for the Arabic speaker, because the mere possession of books is never enough to guarantee their understanding.
The Arabic speaker has no language barrier, and yet he needs all the richness of the scholars' works, in tafsir, in fiqh and in ʿaqida, in order to understand well. The non-Arabic speaker, who must in addition cross a linguistic distance, needs it even more. To restrict the translated corpus for him, while the Arabic speaker has entire libraries at his disposal, amounts to holding a double standard towards him. The greater the distance from the original meaning, the more scholarly mediation, and therefore translation, becomes necessary.
A real difficulty remains. A highly contextualised text, such as a fatwa, can be misunderstood when it is detached from its original situation. This phenomenon does not depend on language and occurs in Arabic as in any other language. The relevant question therefore concerns the way to translate and to support the text.
Restricting access to the heritage under the pretext of protection would amount to maintaining a permanent dependence. The intellectual elevation of a community passes through direct access to the sources, even when they are demanding.
“The Prophet ﷺ made it clear that the existence of written books and recited words is of no avail for knowledge if it is not accompanied by its understanding and its comprehension.”
Ibn Taymiyya, Jawab al-Iʿtiradat al-Misriyya, p. 44Translation Would Be a Betrayal of the Author
Some speak less of 'sacredness' than of fidelity. To translate would be a form of betrayal. The great works of heritage are seen as precious, almost untouchable assets. Their true nature could only be savoured in Arabic, and any translation would risk impoverishing or distorting them.
It is true that no translation perfectly reproduces the linguistic density, the style and the implicit allusions of a classical Arabic text. Every translation involves a choice, and every choice carries a measure of interpretation.
Recognising this limit does not, however, lead to prohibition. The very process that this objection calls a betrayal is used by revelation itself. Allah reports in Arabic the words of Moses, of Pharaoh and of Jacob, which were spoken in Hebrew, in Coptic or in Syriac, and He likewise reports in Arabic a saying of the Jews uttered in Hebrew (Quran 5:64). A large part of the Quranic narrative thus proceeds from a translation.
The precedent is also prophetic. The Prophet ﷺ sent letters in Arabic containing the names of Allah, and these were translated for their non-Arab recipients. Zayd ibn Thabit translated for him the letters that reached him in Syriac. Translation thus served the transmission of the message from the prophetic era itself.
Ibn Taymiyya adds an important criterion. The success of a translation is measured by the clarity of the meaning for the one who receives it. When a wording makes that meaning more accessible, it becomes even preferable to a word-for-word repetition. Even when languages differ, the essence of the intended objective reaches the reader through translation, and that translation bears on both the wording and the meaning.
The Arabic original remains the ultimate reference, and translation does not come to compete with it or to replace it. Yet a work that no one can read remains without a voice in intellectual discourse. Attachment to the classical authors is also measured by the will to keep their thought alive beyond its original language.
“The Jews said: the hand of Allah is fettered (Quran 5:64). Now they said it in Hebrew, and Allah reported it about them in Arabic.”
Ibn Taymiyya, Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyya, p. 741“This is how every translator renders the speech of another in a wording clearer, for those who listen to it, than the original wording.”
Ibn Taymiyya, Ar-Radd ʿala as-Subki, p. 484Translation Breaks the Traditional Pedagogical Order
Classical Islamic education follows a methodical progression. Translating major works could incite some to skip steps.
Gradualness is a real pedagogical principle. The availability of a book does not call this method into question, because any disorder in learning belongs to the way of studying and remains independent of whether the text is accessible. The adage according to which whoever takes his book as his master commits more errors than he gets right warns against solitary study, and that warning holds in Arabic as in any other language.
The early Muslims, moreover, took up this path very early. Ibn Taymiyya reports that the Persian Muslims, out of concern for transmission, produced numerous bilingual copies of the Quran, with the Arabic text and its Persian translation side by side. He rejoices in this explicitly, without ever suggesting that this practice should have turned them away from learning Arabic.
The reasoning holds fully here. The community accepted the bilingual edition for the Quran itself, which is the most sensitive text there is. To refuse this same process for a work of history, of fiqh or of tafsir would therefore be inconsistent with the practice of the Salaf. Ibn Taymiyya indeed praises the care (ʿinaya) of the Persians, and he holds careful translation to be a virtue of the community.
Translation abolishes neither the necessity of teachers nor the importance of a structured path. It broadens access to the materials on which that path is built.
For a non-Arabic-speaking audience, the absence of translation rather creates an imbalance, by installing a permanent dependence on summaries, excerpts and intermediaries. Making the great works accessible allows the general level to be raised and encourages a more mature relationship with the heritage.
“The Muslim sons of Persia, out of concern for this transmission, translated numerous copies of the Quran: they would write them in Arabic and write the translation in Persian.”
Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Jawab as-Sahih, p. 457In Conclusion
Far from being a betrayal of Arabic or a break with tradition, the translation of classical Islamic works continues an ancient principle, that of making the message intelligible to those who need it.
Arabic remains the source language and the ultimate reference. Access to the heritage should nonetheless not remain reserved for those who already master that language.
Carried out with seriousness, translation brings the classical heritage within reach of those who were distant from it, and it often leads its readers towards the study of Arabic itself.
Explore the library“Addressing people in their own language and according to their terminology is not blameworthy when there is a need and the meaning is sound; it is even praiseworthy, when necessary, to translate the Quran and the hadith for one who needs to understand.”
Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu' al-Fatawa, 3/306