The Arabic Qur’an is today the one sacred text-book in all Moslem lands such as in Turkey, Afghanistan, Java, Sumatra, Russia and China, as well as in those lands where Arabic is the mother tongue.

Yet to three quarters of the Moslem world Arabic is a dead language; for Islam spread even more rapidly than did the language of the Qur’an and in consequence the Moslem world of today is polyglot. The chief literary languages of the Moslem world next to Arabic are Persian, Turkish, Urdu and Bengali. In all of these, and in other languages, there is a large amount of Moslem religious literature — dogmatic, mystic and controversial. Yet the question whether the Qur’an itself might be translated into other languages has always been contested by the orthodox party. It is true that Muslims have themselves prepared a number of translations, or running commentaries on the sacred text, as interlinear notes, but such copies of the Qur’an are expensive and rare.

The Bible, in contrast to the Qur’an has this unique quality that it can be rendered into all the languages of mankind without losing its majesty, beauty and spiritual power. The secret lies in the subject-matter of the Scriptures.

The difficulty with the Qur’an is that it is in a sense untranslatable. To imitate its rhyme and rhythm is impossible. Its beauty is altogether in its style, and, therefore, necessarily artificial. For the sake of the rhyme unnecessary repetitions are frequently made, which interrupt the sense of the passage and sometimes even appear ridiculous in translation.

"The language of the Qur’an," says Stanley Lane-Poole "has the ring of poetry, though no part of it complies with the demands of Arab metre. The sentences are short and full of half-restrained energy, yet with a musical cadence. The thought is often only half expressed; one feels the speaker has essayed a thing beyond words, and has suddenly discovered the impotence of language and broken off with the sentence unfinished. There is the fascination of true poetry about these earliest Surahs; as we read them we understand the enthusiasm of the Prophet's followers, though we cannot fully realise the beauty and the power, inasmuch as we cannot hear them hurled forth with Muhammad's fiery eloquence. From first to last the Qur’an is essentially a book to be heard, not read."

And elsewhere the same author says: "These early speeches of the Qur’an are short and impassioned. They are pitched too high to be long sustained. We feel that we have to do with a poet, as well as a preacher, and that his poetry costs him too much to be spun out. The words are those of a man whose whole heart is in his subject, and they carry with them even now the impression of the burning vehemence with which they were hurled forth." (C/F Islam p 16)

It is this artificial character of the book which has baffled the skill of translators, and no translation will ever satisfy those who can read the original; for did not Muhammad himself say,

"I love the Arabs for three reasons: because I am an Arabian, because the Qur’an is Arabic, and because the language of the people of Paradise is Arabic too."

A story was current among Moslems at Peshawar that George Sale, on his death-bed, declared himself a Muslim, and asked forgiveness for having put forward such an incorrect translation of the Qur’an as he had made, and desired that all copies should be burned!

Mostly the translation of the Qur’an into the languages of Europe were the work of non-Moslems.

The first translation of the Qur’an was due to the missionary spirit of Petrus Venerabilis; Abbot of Clugny (died A.D. 1157). He proposed the translation of the Qur’an into Latin, and the task was accomplished by an Englishman, Robert of Retina, and a German, Hermann of Dalmatia. Although the work was completed in 1143, it remained hidden for nearly 400 years, till it was published at Basle in 1543 by Theodore Bibliander. This version was afterwards rendered into Italian, German and Dutch. A second Latin translation of the Qur’an was made by Father Louis Maracci in 1698 and published at Padua. For further details the reader should consult (Studies in Popular Islam - Zwemer p.p 83-86)

The first English Qur’an was Alexander Ross's translation of Du Ryer's French version (1648-1688). He was utterly unacquainted with Arabic, and not a thorough French scholar; therefore his translation is faulty in the extreme.

Sale's well-known work first appeared in 1734, has passed through many editions, and is the most widely known of all English versions.

He himself wrote: "Though I have freely censured the former translations of the Koran, I would not, therefore, be suspected of a design to make my own pass as free from faults.”

Whatever faults may have been found in Sale's translation, his Preliminary Discourse will always stand as one of the most valuable contributions to the study of Islam. It has been translated into Arabic with added notes under the title Makalafat fi'l Islam, and is eagerly read by Moslems themselves. Sale's translation is extremely paraphrastic, but the fact that the additional matter in italics is, in nearly every case, added from the Commentary of El-Baidhawi, makes it the more valuable to the reader. This is the only complete English translation with explanatory footnotes, without which the Koran is scarcely intelligible.

In 1861 a translation was made by the Rev. J. M. Rodwell. In this the Surahs or chapters are arranged chronologically. Dr. Margoliouth characterizes this rendering as one of the best yet produced. "Not the least among its recommendations is, perhaps, that it is scholarly without being pedantic—that is to say, that it aims at correctness without sacrificing the right effect of the whole to over-insistence on small details," But this version also has many inaccuracies, especially in the use of tenses and particles.

Edward Henry Palmer's translation appeared in 1880 in the series, "Sacred Books of the East." He considers Sale's translation scholarly, his notes invaluable, but says that the style of the language employed "differs widely from the nervous energy and rugged simplicity of the original." Although Rodwell's version approaches nearer to the Arabic, Palmer states that in this also "there is too much assumption of the literary style." In his own translation he has attempted to render into English the rude, fierce eloquence of the Bedouin Arabs, and I believe has succeeded. Sometimes the literal rendering may even shock the reader as it did those who first heard the message. For example, in the chapter of Abraham, verse 19, Sale and Rodwell have softened down the inelegant text, but Palmer gives it fearlessly:

There were also two English translations by Moslems in 1905, the Holy Koran, translated by Dr. Mohammed Abdul Hakim Khan, with short notes. This was printed in England. In 1911 Ashgar and Company at Allahabad published the Arabic text with English translation, arranged chronologically, by Mirza Abu’l Fazl.

There is no doubt that the chief charm of the Qur’an, from a literary standpoint, is its musical jingle and cadence which an English translation cannot reproduce.

To sum up the result of these investigations we remember that this work of translation has, with a few exceptions, been the work of Western scholars, Orientalists and missionaries, the contrast between the Arabic Qur’an and the Bible, the Book for all nations, is strikingly evident. And from the missionary standpoint we have nothing to fear from modem Qur’an translations; rather may we not hope that the contrast between the Bible and the Qur’an will be evident to all readers when they compare them in their vernacular?

A well known Moslem lawyer was speaking to his co-religionists in the Punjab on matters connected with Islam, and protested against this mistaken policy of not translating the Qur‘an so readily into other languages. He said "The reason why Christians succeed is because wherever they go they have the Bible and say their prayers in their mother-tongue; whereas we have wrapped up our religion in an Arabic dress. We should give the people the Qur’an and let them say their prayers in their own language." The only answer he received was, "Thou art thyself an unbeliever to say such things."