An-Najah National University 

Faculty of Graduate Studies 

 

 

 

 
 

Renarrating and Framing of Religious 

History in the Translation of Ali Abdel 

Razek‟s „Islam and the Foundations of 

Political Power‟ 
 

 

 

 

 

 

By 

Nasouh Abdul Fattah Babban 
 

 

 

 

 

Supervisor 

Dr. Ekrema Shehab 
 

 
 

 

This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the 

Requirements for the Degree of Master of Applied Linguistics 

and Translation, Faculty of Graduate Studies, An-Najah 

National University, Nablus, Palestine. 

2020 





iii 
 

Dedication 

In memory of my parents 

―On Angel‘s Wings you were taken away, 

But in my heart you will always stay. 

I will hear your whisper in the tallest trees, 

Feel your love in the gentle breeze. 

And when I find I miss you the most, 

Inside our beautiful memories 

I will hold you close. 

You are an angle watching over me 

With the comfort and blessing you bring, 

You embrace my heart and hold it close, 

Forever on Angel‘s wings. 

Crailin Hardy (2014)  

  



iv 
 

Acknowledgments  

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without 

the thoughtful guidance, meticulous attention, unlimited support and 

encouragement of my supervisor, Dr. Ekrema Shehab whose selfless time 

and dedication to details have actually made the difference. It is self-

evident that I have significantly benefited from him, provided that those 

who have given most should be acknowledged with the most thanks. There 

are no words that can adequately express my gratitude for Dr. Shehab. I 

would also like to express my very great appreciation to Dr. Bilal 

Hamamrah and Dr. Sameer Al Eisa for their valuable and constructive 

suggestions during the planning of my research work. Meanwhile, I would 

like to offer my special thanks to Dr. Ruqaya Hirzallah, Dr. Odeh Odeh, 

Dr. Ayman Nazzal, Dr. Sufyan Abuarrah, and Dr. Abdul Kareem 

Daragmah. My special thanks are also extended to the staff of the English 

Department at An-Najah National University. Last but not least, I would 

like to extend my gratitude to the panel of examiners: my external 

examiner, Dr. Mohammad Thawabeteh and my internal examiner, Dr. 

Rami Qawariq.     





vi 
 

Table of contents 

No. Content Page 

 Defense Committee Members ii 

 Dedication iii 

 Acknowledgements  iv 

 Declaration v 

 Table of Contents  vi 

 Abstract viii 

1 Chapter One: Introduction  1 

1.1 Introduction  2 

1.2 Purpose of the study  7 

1.3 Research questions  10 

1.4 Methodology 12 

2 Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework  14 

2.1 Theoretical framework   15 

2.2 Literature Review 20 

3 Chapter Three: Analysis of Data and Discussions 28 

3.1 Introduction  29 

3.2 A typology of narrative   30 

3.2.1 Ontological narratives  31 

3.2.2 Public narratives  38 

3.2.3 Conceptual (disciplinary) narratives  41 

3.2.4 Meta-narratives  47 

3.3 Features of narrativity I  52 

3.3.1 Relationality  52 

3.3.2 Causal emplotment  58 

3.3.3 Selective appropriation  64 

3.3.4 Temporality  68 

3.4 Features of narrativity II  73 

3.4.1 Particularity  73 

3.4.2 Genericness  75 

3.4.3 Normativeness  79 

3.4.4 Narrative accrual  81 

3.5 Framing narratives in translation  85 

3.5.1 Temporal and special framing  86 

3.5.2 Framing through selective appropriation  89 

3.5.3 Framing by labeling  91 

3.5.4 Framing by repositioning of participants  94 

3.5.5 Framing by repositioning of paratexual commentary  96 



vii 
 

No. Content Page 

3.6 Assessing narratives: Fisher‘s paradigm  98 

3.6.1 Coherence  98 

3.6.2 Fidelity  103 

4 Chapter Four: Conclusion and Recommendations  109 

4.1 Conclusion  110 

4.2 Recommendations  114 

 References  115 

 ة السلخص 

 

  



viii 
 

Renarrating and Framing of Religious History in the Translation of 

Ali Abdel Razek‟s „Islam and the Foundations of Political Power‟ 

By 

Nasouh Abdul Fattah Babban 

Supervisor 

Dr. Ekrema Shehab 

Abstract 

This study draws on Mona Baker‘s notion of ‗renarration‘ as a new 

metaphor for translation in order to examine a book by the Egyptian 

Muslim orthodox author (Al Azhar scholar) Ali Abdel Razek, in the 

context of the Muslim dominant narrative and the power of the Muslim 

scholars over translation, which turned the discipline into an ideological 

entrapment. The book by Abdel Razek, ‗Islam and the Foundations of 

Political Power‘ (1925), which was translated into English by Maryam 

Loutfi and edited by Abdou Filali-Ansary in 2012, narrates the Muslim 

religious history in a marked contrast to the Muslim prevailing narrative 

which Muslims believe to come straight from authoritative sources and is 

characterized by the use of skillfully written and breathtaking anti-ideology 

statements (Islam is a religion, not a state). In all Muslim controlling 

narratives, ideology is linked to translation: It stands for the cultural 

conflict between Islam and the West. The Muslim superior narrative is a 

particularly sensitive issue to which translators should adhere and reject 

other narratives which can possibly give a bad image about Islam. This 

study investigates the possible reasons for the extremely negative feedback 

received about Abdel Razek‘s book for about a century. Baker‘s narrative 

theory: typology, features and strategies of framing and assessment are 

applied to the translation of the book to establish a claim that Baker‘s 



ix 
 

ideology-driven analytical tools are of very little use in the first place as 

researchers from diverse backgrounds will draw similar, if not typical, 

conclusions with or without the employment of Baker‘s parameters. The 

strength of Baker‘s theoretical categories is less likely to have any real 

effect on the researcher. It seems that Baker‘s version of the theory is 

unproductive as far as religion, history and politics in Islam are concerned. 

It usually takes the researcher a deep understanding of the Muslim 

dominant narratives to analyze Muslim religious, political and historical 

translations: just interpret the translations in a marked contrast to the 

dominant narratives. In this sense, it also takes the well-informed translator 

little effort to dig the Muslim heritage and come up with Muslim narratives 

that deviate from and contradict the dominant ones; those will surely meet 

the target audience‘s taste, needs and desires. The mere translation of a 

contradicting narrative is an act of framing in itself. To a great extent, the 

translator of the book in question was faithful to the source text even at the 

cost of the final product‘s readability and naturalness, simply because the 

book conveys a different message than the Muslim prevailing narrative and 

the translator did not have to elicit a different response than the source text 

and its paraphernalia. As far as ideology is concerned, an analysis of the 

application of Baker‘s narrative theory to an area of inquiry conducted by a 

Muslim researcher would inevitably conclude that translation was not up to 

par regardless of its several advantages; whereas the analysis of the same 

translation conducted by ‗the other‘ would highlight the translation‘s 

uniqueness and greatness regardless of its obvious flaws and deficiencies.  



1 
 

 

Chapter One 

Introduction 

1.1 Introduction 

1.2  Purpose of the study 

1.3 Research questions 

1.4  Methodology 

 

  



2 
 

Chapter One 

Introduction 

1.1 Introduction 

It takes a Muslim Arab well-informed reader who carefully goes 

through Mona Baker‘s book ‗Translation and Conflict: A Narrative 

Account‘ a matter of few days only to rightly and logically assume that s/he 

is a potential theorist who is fully equipped with whatever it takes of tools 

to reach the zone of pitting against the titans of translation studies. Such a 

dream can indeed come true. It is not restricted to Arabs and Muslims, but 

it seems that the probability for Arabs and Muslims has a larger chance, 

taking their rich culture, history and religion into consideration. But how 

can this be explained?  

Baker‘s way of drawing on other theorists is described by Pym 

(2016: 290) as: ―she picks up fragments of theorizing from other people, 

then shanghaies those pieces into political activism.‖ The only novelty of 

Baker‘s collection of other peoples‘ notions lies in the destination 

management and the carefully-chosen place to arrive at with those bits and 

pieces. Baker‘s background plays in her favor and enables her to figure out 

the actual intellectual components of this part of the world (i.e. ,the Arab 

and Muslim world) and the importance of politics as the current main front, 

under which comes other key aspects of the society including culture, 

history and religion. However, within the Muslim culture, the latter 



3 
 

demands undisputed leadership and categorically rejects any position 

otherwise. From the Muslim perspective, public masses do not have to 

puzzle their heads with the interpretation of the political, historical and 

religious texts; needless to mention translation to other languages and 

cultures. Muslim scholars provide the masses with a ready-made and easy-

to-grasp interpretation of their sacred texts and so the masses are told what 

their scriptures and history mean. Those are authoritative texts presenting 

highly important literature and convey messages which should be easy to 

understand. Those texts are based on what Wansbrough and Rippen (1977) 

term as the religiously inspired interpretations of history rather than records 

of events.  

This, on the other hand, implies that there are other narratives and 

interpretations in the Muslim culture. It goes without saying however that 

only a tiny group of Muslim scholars are supposed to get engaged with 

coming at an understanding of Muslim scriptures and the history of Islam, 

which pose serious interpretive and translation difficulties. Roy (2004: 10) 

precisely highlights this Muslim dilemma as saying: ―the key question is 

not what the Qur‘an actually says, but what Muslims say the Quran says.‖ 

So it is a mere question of how Muslims themselves interpret and 

understand their scriptures, history and their position in the world, and how 

this understanding and interpretation influence their attitudes towards 

translation. Transparency of meaning and morality of Islam, for example, 

will be at risk when a translator tackles the scriptures or historic texts 



4 
 

directly without any Muslim scholarly prior interpretive mediation. Nida 

(1964: 154) assumes that translator‘s purposes should be similar to those of 

the original author: ―intellectual honesty requires the translator to be as free 

as possible from personal intrusion in the communication process.‖ This is 

a risky mission for all parties not only as it implies that there cannot and 

should not be a real and free translator-text relationship but also that some 

texts fail as mediatory pieces that truly contain the meaning of the author. 

Armed with public consensus, certain Muslim scholars manipulate the 

interpretation of the scriptures and the history of Islam and whatever comes 

under them including politics and culture, clearly in advance that protesting 

against this agreed-upon and centuries-old power balance is publicly seen 

as a protest against Islam itself, and that is a sin entitled to God‘s well-

defined punishment. To cut this short, Muslim scriptures and history are 

adjudicated by those scholars, who are believed to be the guardians of 

religion, and the public masses are told what those texts mean. What have 

been said and provided centuries ago should be believed and revered as the 

only possible interpretation of the texts, and that meaning should be the one 

conveyed when translation is concerned. According to Lefevere (1982: 5), 

ideology tops the list of constraints that govern translation: ―in societies 

with differentiated patronage, economic factors such as the profit motive 

are liable to achieve the status of an ideology themselves, dominating all 

other considerations‖. Is it really important for Baker therefore to worry 

herself with four types of narrative as she formalizes her version of 

narrative and introduces it to translation studies? The dominant narrative 



5 
 

that is built by scholars and believed by the Muslim masses would be 

enough, in addition, may be, to ontological narrative (to be explained later). 

The dominant narrative runs through a vicious circle, putting on different 

masks on its way to represent –in order to meet Baker‘s standards- the 

public narrative, when it is passed from the scholars to the public, who 

heavily narrate it in what is believed to be a religious duty to end up as a 

meta-narrative that is recognized globally. This way, surprisingly, shows 

that Baker‘s contribution to translation studies perpetuates the 

imprisonment of the discipline which is originally meant to be the only 

branch of science that brings cultures closer and shares a great deal of 

common grounds. Baker‘s contribution also restricts translation readership 

to two conflicting parties subscribing already to competing narratives. 

Ogden (2003: 175) similarly could not think of any difference between the 

readers and the translators who ―will inevitably bring to the text their own 

cultural, political, theological and other biases.‖  

Based on Baker‘s most valuable contribution to translation studies, 

this study examines the possibility of freedom looming on the horizon for 

translation in the Arab and Muslim world. The main question of this study 

in other words can be paraphrased as the following: What happens when 

competing narratives/interpretations are based in the same culture (i.e., 

Muslim culture)? Even the faithful translation of narratives/interpretations 

other than the one adopted by the scholars- without the need to apply 

Baker‘s framing strategies- is in itself an act of framing of the entire 



6 
 

translation with presenting a well-sourced undeniable Muslim narrative that 

can be used by the ‗other‘ competing party as a historical corrective 

designed basically to challenge and contradict the carefully-chosen and 

agreed upon narrative of the Muslim mainstream. It is crystal clear 

moreover that the shocking secular narrative/interpretation which comes 

from a Muslim orthodox scholar (Al Azhar scholar: Ali Abdel Razek) is 

itself a valuable piece that can be employed at the international arena as a 

part of the West‘s war on terror. This study attempts to prove that in the 

case of Abdel Razek‘s masterpiece which is initially chosen as the corpus 

for this study, the mere existence of a translation for this book is an act of 

framing in itself. That is why it took almost a century to get this book 

translated into English in a place that is far away from the Muslim world. It 

was translated in England. The fact that the work is a different 

narrative/interpretation from the Muslim dominant version is the main 

theme of a 20-page introduction to the translation provided by the 

translation‘s editor who also puts the book in its historical context. The 

only possible use of paratexual material then is the introduction‘s loud 

shout to target readers that this piece is a must-read one which meets the 

other‘s political agenda. ―It is only in circulation that a text assumes its 

significance‖ (Genette, 1997: 14). The researcher solidly believes that 

translations of the Muslim dominant narratives have no circulation, nor do 

they have readership in the West, but the translations of those other 

narratives just represent the other extreme in line with readership and 

circulation. It is inevitably understood that religions in general and their 



7 
 

relative historicity have holes, and in regard with Islam, the prevailing 

narratives are meant to be the patched up or the pieced together narratives. 

To sum this up, surpassing any of those dominant Muslim narratives in 

translation is in itself an act of framing with no need to apply Baker‘s 

typology, features, strategies and assessments, but to put in mind her 

brilliant introductory statement commenting on the competing powers: 

―translation is central to the ability of all parties to legitimize their version 

of events‖ (Baker, 2006: 1). For the sake of the study however, the 

researcher examines the degree of faithfulness of the translation of Abdel 

Razek‘s book in contrast to the Muslim controlling narratives and assesses 

the suitability of the translation to the target culture, within Baker‘s 

framework.  

1.2 Purpose of the study 

Muslims usually look at translated texts with preconceptions 

formulated by their scholars, demand from translators and urge them to 

translate only the Muslim dominant narratives and interpretations and keep 

all other narratives in the shadow. According to the Muslim norms, the 

choosing of the potential texts to be translated into other languages should 

basically be done by their enlightening scholars, or else the translators will 

be accused of giving a bad image about the Muslim culture, history, 

religion and politics. Those scholars are divinely chosen ones who 

exclusively know what really goes in the best interest of Islam. Muslims 

believe that strict adherence to this demand is a religious duty that should 



8 
 

be fulfilled without taking into consideration that such demands pose 

hindrances and result in the creation of borders and preconditions which 

kill translation once and for all. Freedom for translation is just like the air 

and there is nothing that can really make it up. Will there be translation or 

not? This is the question; the survival of the translation studies is fully 

dependent on the ability of both the readers and receivers to factor out their 

preconceptions. Muslims believe that what should be translated from their 

culture into the culture of the other should be ultimately controlled and that 

their own interpretation of whatever texts lining up for translation is 

decided in advance and that is uncompromising and correct. This is 

basically censorship of the worst shape that is manifested socially in the 

image created for the individual translator in his/her society. Within 

Baker‘s narrative version that is only applicable if, and only if, there is a 

conflict, the status of the translator is embarrassing, critical and serious. 

Getting stuck between two conflicting parties, the translator- in this part of 

the world- can either be a patriot or a traitor politically, a true Muslim or an 

apostate religiously, a social actor or an alien socially. At what exact cost 

can free translation be conducted? The cost will be similar to the one paid 

by the original author. This claim can easily be sustained by interviewing 

Muslim hardliners to express their opinions about both the translation of 

the book and its translator. Baker is supposed to show me, as a translator, 

the way out of this entrapment, not to perpetuate it by giving it an 

ideological significance. Reading a single phrase or a sentence from a text 

is enough for an average Muslim reader to judge the suitability of a text in 



9 
 

consonance with his/her preconceptions. They are imprisoned in their 

interpretations and provide spontaneous prior judgments. Baker‘s 

contribution in this regard perpetuates this kind of imprisonment and 

attributes it to ideological grounds in a way that adds salt to injury. The 

only way out however is freeing those people from their preconceptions 

and make them objective to what is recommended for translation and what 

they read of translated texts. Does Baker‘s book really teach her Muslim 

audience that preconception is bad? Does her contribution to translation 

studies seal the holes which preconceptions use to sneak in the discipline? 

The answers to these questions decide whether Baker‘s contribution 

considers ideology-laden translation perfectly appropriate and natural or 

that there must be another interpretation for her narrative version. This 

study shows the uselessness of translation studies if the readers approach 

texts and handle them on a par with their built-in presuppositions and 

preconceptions. There will be no chance for them to benefit even the 

minimum from the text in hand. With a renowned author like Mona Baker, 

readers are supposed to be taught and trained to get beyond their 

preconceptions. They should also be trained on how to act when they come 

face to face with another culture and what to do to bridge the historical and 

cultural gulf between their culture and that of the other. This study aims to 

prove that ideological contributions will lead us just nowhere and that texts 

and books will end up useless as they will not say anything, nor will they 

add anything to the knowledge of the target reader. Translation this way is 

meant only to perpetuate conflicts and pour gasoline on the raging fire. As 



10 
 

far as ideology is concerned, the study shows that with regard to the 

Muslim influential books including religious, historic and political ones, 

the mere translation in itself is an act of framing of the translation. 

Therefore, the other needs only to review the different Muslim narratives/ 

interpretations and conducts a text selective choosing which ends up as the 

only and most effective framing strategy of all time. Translation in this case 

should and can be faithful where Baker‘s multi-layer narrative proves to be 

of very little use, if any.  

1.3 Research questions  

A reader of Baker‘s book ―Narrative and Conflict: A Narrative 

Account‖ grasps the idea of ‗renarration‘ as a new metaphor for translation. 

―Because the previous notions of translation such as ‗faithfulness‘ and 

equivalence effect‘ are linguistically driven and less discourse based, they 

cannot satisfy translation theory, renarration is another metaphor for 

translation.‖ (Pormouzeh, 2014, 608).  

―Narratives, in the sense used here, are the everyday stories we live by, … 

one of the attractions of narrative is that it is a highly transparent and 

intuitively satisfying concept that can easily be understood by anyone‖ 

(Baker, 2006, p.3); ―translation is central to the ability of all parties to 

legitimize their version of events,‖ (Baker, 2006, p.1). It goes without 

saying that this can be the departure point for listing a group of questions 

which are analyzed in this study to further shed light on Baker‘s account of 

narrative theory and evaluate the theory‘s pros and cons to conclude finally 



11 
 

whether this account fits and enhances Islam-West relation or deteriorates 

that relation especially under a current environment of heightened tensions. 

Those questions are: 

1. Is a dominant narrative which stands for the preconceptions really 

transparent and can win the battle of circulation?  

2. What happens when the translated dominant narrative is questioned 

and challenged by well-informed target audience especially with the 

existence of counter narratives that are introduced by authors and 

translators like Abdel Razek?  

3. What is the attitude of the target audience when they become aware 

of counter narratives that go in direct contrast with the dominant 

ones?  

4. Can the careful choice of counter narratives that contradict the 

Muslim dominant ones and the faithful translation of those narratives 

be considered an act of framing of the translation in itself?  

5. What does it really take to apply Baker‘s version of narrative on a 

controversial book like that of Abdel Razek?  

6. What is the degree of importance of Baker‘s version of the narrative 

theory when it comes to the translation of the counter narratives that 

go in direct contrast with the dominant ones? 

  



12 
 

1.4  Methodology   

This study adopts the qualitative method as a strategy to explore the 

research questions. My qualitative study is presented in a descriptive 

method based on contextual  narrative found in Ali Abdel Razek‘s most 

controversial book in modern Arab and Muslim history ―Islam and the 

Foundations of Political Power‖ and in light of  Baker‘s narrative theory in 

her well-cited book ―Narrative and Conflict: A narrative Account‖, which 

introduces narrative to the field of translation studies.  

  In her book, Baker discusses four types of narrative: ontological 

narratives, public narratives, conceptual (disciplinary) narratives and meta-

narratives. Dozens of examples, drawn from Abdel Raziq‘s book, on these 

types of narrative are analyzed and discussed. It is needless to mention that 

the assessment of the English correspondent translation occupies a 

prominent place in this study, as whether translation loves and conveys 

ideology- driven messages or translation dislikes and discloses ideology 

and strips ideology-driven texts off their ideological loads and presents 

them in a fair way, or at least, reduces the heavy ideological loads as much 

as possible.  

Dozens of other examples are listed in the study to further illustrate 

other types of narrative: the narrative features, strategies of framing and the 

parameters for the assessment of a narrative. To cut it short, this study is 

aimed at applying the narrative theory on as many examples as possible 

(from both Abdel Razek‘s Arabic source text and its correspondent English 



13 
 

translation) to come up with fair and square conclusions, bearing in mind 

that the study‘s analysis is based in a marked contrast to the Muslim 

dominant narratives. The outcome of the analysis will also show the 

adherence of the translator to those Muslim dominant narratives and the 

possible situations that necessitate the use of the framing strategies 

introduced by Baker, if any.   

  



14 
 

 

Chapter Two 

Theoretical Framework 

2.1 Theoretical framework   

2.2 Literature Review 

 

  



15 
 

Chapter Two 

Theoretical Framework 

2.1 Theoretical Framework   

This study mainly relies on the narrative theory which is a social and 

communication theory that is related to translation studies by Mona Baker 

in her book ―Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account‖. Baker‘s book 

clearly shows that translators and interpreters contribute to conflicts and 

play a key role in creating and circulating them. She highlights the fact that 

translations and interpretations are never and can never be completely 

objective but they are politically motivated, stressing that there is no 

neutrality in translation and interpretation, but those are the mere outcome 

of the ideology of the translators, interpreters and their agencies and 

patronages.  

Drawing on Somers and Gibson (1994), Baker (2006: 4) adopts their 

four types of narrative to express the level on which the narrative operates 

and redefines those types according to her purpose of use: in a conflict 

zone. Those types include ‗ontological narratives‘ which she redefines as 

―personal stories that we tell ourselves about our place in the world and our 

own personal history; they are interpersonal and social in nature but remain 

focused on the self and its immediate world‖ Baker (2006: 4). She then 

moves to the second type and redefines the ‗public narratives‘ as ―stories 

elaborated by and circulating among social and institutional formations 



16 
 

larger than the individual, such as the family, religious or educational 

institution, the media, and the nation.‖ Further, she redefines the 

‗conceptual (disciplinary) narratives‘ as ―the stories and explanations that 

scholars in any field elaborate for themselves and others about their object 

of inquiry‖ (Baker, 2006: 5). And finally, she redefines the ‗meta-

narratives‘ as ―public narratives ‗in which we are embedded as 

contemporary actors in history‖ (Baker, 2006, p. 4-6).  

Baker (2006) also adopts Somers‘ and Gibson‘s (1994) features of 

narrative behavior and explains how narratives really work to constitute 

reality for us. The four main features of narratives include relationality, 

casual emplotment, selective appropriation and temporality. ―The 

discussion of typology and features make us further understand the 

complex ways in which narrativity mediates our experience of the world 

and its potential application in translation studies‖ (Min, 2007, p. 58). 

Baker simultaneously adopts four other features drawn on the work of 

Bruner (1991) including particularity, genericness, normativeness 

(including canonicity and breach) and narrative accrual to expand her 

approach and highlight the roles both narrative and translation can play at 

the time of conflict and the ways where those two effective tools are used 

by competing parties ―to legitimize their version of events‖ (Baker, 2006: 

1). Copying a typology of narrative, Baker (2006) redefines those features 

to suit her destination. Baker redefines relationality to ―mean that it is 

impossible for the human mind to make sense of isolated events or of a 



17 
 

patchwork of events that are not constituted as a narrativity‖ (Baker, 2006: 

61).  Baker goes on to say that: ―causal emplotment gives significance to 

independent instances, and overrides their chronological or categorical 

order‖ (Baker, 2006: 67). For Baker, selective appropriation stands for: 

―some elements of experience are excluded and others privileged. 

Narratives are constructed according to evaluative criteria which enable 

and guide selective appropriation of a set of events or elements from the 

vast array of open-ended and overlapping events that constitute experience‖ 

(Baker, 2006: 170-171). She lastly states that: ―temporality means that 

sequence is an organizing principle in interpreting experience. The set of 

events, relationships and protagonists that constitute any narrative – 

whether ontological, public or conceptual – has to be embedded in a 

sequential context and in a specific temporal and spatial configuration that 

renders them intelligible‖ (Baker, 2006: 51). 

Building however on Bruner, and as illustrated in figure 3 below, 

Baker defines particularity as ―master plots‘, as understood by narrative 

grammarians and to some extent by folklore scholars – skeletal stories that 

combine a range of raw elements in different ways‖ (Baker, 2006: 78). She 

says that genericness is ―recognizable ―kinds‖ of narrative: farce, black 

comedy, tragedy, the Bildungsroman, romance, satire, travel saga, and so 

on‖ (Baker, 2006: 85). She adds that normativeness occurs as ―translators 

are generally conscious of this and their mediation often centers on making 

the target text intelligible while retaining the particular breach encoded in 



18 
 

it‖ (Baker, 2006, p. 99). She ends up defining narrative accrual as ―the 

outcome of repeated exposure to a set of related narratives, ultimately 

leading to the shaping of a culture, tradition, or history‖ (Baker, 2006, p. 

101).  

Baker initially defines narrative as ―public and personal stories that 

we subscribe to and that guide our behavior.‖ (Baker, 2006: 19). On the 

other hand, she defines conflict as ―a situation in which two or more parties 

seek to undermine each other because of their incompatible goals, 

competing interests or fundamentally different values‖ (Baker, 2006: 166) 

where accordingly, a conflict appears to be just a normal circumstance.  

She stresses that ―the retelling of past narratives is also a means of control. 

It socializes individuals into an established social and political order and 

encourages them to interpret present events in terms of sanctioned 

narratives of the past…. it circumscribes the stock of identities from which 

individuals may choose a social role for themselves‖ (Baker, 2006: 21).  

While narratives ―are stories that people tell to make sense of reality, 

they are distinct from other forms of discourse because the events are 

selected, organized, connected, and evaluated as meaningful for a particular 

audience‖ Riessman and Quinney, 2005: 394). They note that analysis in 

narrative studies interrogates language – how and why events are storied, 

not simply the content to which language refers. 

In line with framing, it is  worth noting that the term ‗frame‘ has 

been used by scholars in different fields, but the concept can be traced back 



19 
 

to the work of Goffman (1974: 345): ―an individual‘s framing of activity 

establishes meaningfulness for him.‖   

Commenting on Baker‘s discussion of framing narratives in 

translation, Xiumei (2010: 399) says that Baker‘s assumption is that 

―translators and interpreters are not merely passive receivers of 

assignments from others, rather, many initiate their own translation projects 

and actively select texts and volunteer for interpreting tasks that contribute 

to the elaboration of particular narratives. They are responsible for the texts 

and utterances that participate in creating, negotiating and contesting social 

reality.‖ He goes on to say that ―from a cognitive and communicative 

perspective, translation and interpreting as a form of communication aims 

to modify people‘s cognitive environment and improve their knowledge of 

the world‖ (Xiumei, 2010: 401). Baker believes framing to be an effective 

tool with which translators and interpreters can intervene in the original 

text, and defines framing as ―the many ways in which translators and 

interpreters – in collaboration with publishers, editors and other agents 

involved in the interaction – accentuate, undermine or modify aspects of 

the narrative(s) encoded in the source text or utterance, and in so doing 

participate in shaping social reality (Baker, 2006: 5). Min (2007: 57-58) 

believes that Baker successfully combines the narrative theory and 

translation studies by way of the notion of frame as elaborated in the work 

of Goffman and the literature on social movements. She focuses on four 

key strategies for translators, interpreters and other agents to accentuate, 



20 
 

undermine or modify aspects of the narratives encoded in the source text or 

utterance, namely, ‗temporal and spatial framing‘, ‗framing through 

selective appropriation‘, ‗framing by labeling‘ and ‗repositioning of 

participants‘. She introduces two important concepts: ‗frame ambiguity‘ 

and ‗frame space‘ and points out that the different and conflicting 

international parties can successfully achieve their political purposes by 

consciously using various strategies mentioned above. Min (2007: 58) adds 

that ―as translators are not neutral, they will adopt appropriate strategies to 

achieve their communicative purpose according to different contexts‖. 

Baker suggests other ways for framing the narratives such as the 

paratextual materials like the introductions, prefaces, glossaries, footnotes 

among others in which translators and interpreters position and reposition 

themselves and other participants in the text or utterance.   

In assessing narratives, Baker uses Walter Fisher‘s Narrative 

Paradigm as she explains that ―we make decisions on the basis of what 

Fisher calls good reasons, but what we consider good reasons is 

determined by our history, culture, experience of the world, and ultimately 

the stories we come to believe about the world(s) in which we live‖ (Baker, 

2006: 152). 

2.2  Literature Review  

Aristotle once said that stories give pleasure through their imitation 

of life and their rhythm. He added: ―The plot is the most basic feature of 

narrative, that good stories must have a beginning, middle and end and that 



21 
 

they give pleasure because of the rhythm of their ordering. Man is imitative 

and people delight in imitations, with the instinct for rhythm.‖ (Bywater, 

1909: 6). Narratology as the science of narrative was founded by Tzvetan 

Todorov, Ronald Barthes, Gerard Genette among other contemporary 

theorists who coined the term ―narratology‖ in late 1960s. Todorov and his 

contemporary theorists then copied Ferdinand de Saussure‘s linguistic 

distinction between (langue and parole) and regarded narratology as a 

subdomain of de Saussure‘s structuralist inquiry where just the way de 

Saussure gave advantage to langue over parole, theorists of narratology 

privileged general narratives to individual narratives. Russian Formalists in 

a bold and long-term process integrated the structuralist perspective and the 

morphological perspectives to study all possible types of narrative 

structures introducing the plot-relevant and nonplot-relevant motifs. This 

introduction differentiated between what story is all about and how the 

story is told in the first place. Percy Lubbock (1957), therefore, 

differentiates between showing and telling a story in the sense that in 

showing the story, the author dramatizes it but in telling the story, the 

author describes it, stressing that dramatizing the story far surpasses 

describing it. Meanwhile, Wayne Booth (1983) highlights the importance 

of showing the story terming the action as localizing it. Criticizing this 

critical approach, however Genette (1980) and Todorov (1969) among 

others formulate their project on narratology which assumes the narrative 

as a complex structure that could be interpreted in hierarchical level. 

Todorov then comes up with the term ‗narration‘, which he considers as the 



22 
 

level of discourse, after the Russian Formalists paved the way for him as 

they differentiate between story and discourse. Critics to the structural 

analysis of narrative maintain that this kind of analysis could only suit the 

simplest narratives like the folk tales, but Genette (1997) applies that kind 

of analysis on some of the most complex narratives, which adds great 

theoretical power to the structural analysis. Genette (1997: 8-9) tackles the 

pragmatic status of paratextual element and defines it as ―the characteristics 

of its situation of communication: the nature of the sender and addressee, 

the sender‘s degree of authority and responsibility, the illocutionary force 

of the sender‘s message.‖ He stresses that the sender is most often the 

author or could be the publisher, where the addressee could be the public. 

Drawing on Philippe Lejeune‘s (1975) definition of paratext as ―the fringe 

of the printed text‖ controls the whole reading. Genette (1991: 261) 

provides his own definition of paratext as ―the means by which a text 

makes a book of itself and proposes itself as such to its readers, and more 

generally to the public.‖  

This is significant as Genette (1991) excludes certain areas from 

what he terms as ―authorial construction‖. He divides the paratext into 

preitext (features of the text in its published form such as prefaces, notes, 

and cover material) and epitext (texts circulating independently from the 

book itself such as interviews, letters and marketing materials). 

Accordingly, Genette‘s definition of translation as an authorized process 

that extends the writer‘s authorship was strictly criticized in the field of 



23 
 

translation studies, which favored Barthes (1977) who pronounces the 

death of the author and transfers the authority of the author to both the 

reader and the text, creating a new spacious room for translators to take 

over the author function, where translation reconstruct the author function 

in new textual and contextual ways.   

In this narrative turn, Somers and Gibson (1994: 38) assume that the 

various theories of the social narrative which ―understand the telling of 

stories as an ontological condition of social life‖ surround the author and 

the text with multiple interpretations, giving translation yet a wider room 

and creating the self of the author, which dissolves in the self of the 

institutions that basically control the entire discourse. ―Translation 

continues as a transfer between linguistically and ideologically defined 

discursive spaces, where different framing values are dominant. The 

translated author‘s identity is subject to negotiation by the institutions of 

the receiving discourse and their narratives of self, over which the writer 

has no control‖ (Pellatt, 2014: 13). Reflecting on the level on which 

narrative operates, is the scale used by Somers and Gibson to identify four 

types of narratives and later the relative features for their behavior. They 

also focus on the research context and the wider context which clearly 

manifest the complex relations of power where Somers and Gibson (1994: 

41) say: ―everything we know is the result of numerous crosscutting story-

lines in which social actors locate themselves.‖  



24 
 

As long as translation is concerned, it should be borne  in mind that 

translation is a mere reconstruction of stories, where the translator plays a 

fundamental role that affects the translated story‘s sequencing, characters 

and the meanings the source texts holds within specific context. Bruner 

(1996: 42) believes that ―narratives play the only role in the construction of 

individual identities and the finding of a place in one‘s culture that has not 

been replaced by science.‖ He adds that ―narrative thinking is the easiest 

and natural way we organize things, but it does not mean that everyone can 

acquire the more sophisticated form.‖ Prior to this understanding, Bruner 

describes narratives and science as ―two modes of cognitive functioning, 

two modes of thought, each providing distinctive ways of ordering 

experience, of constructing reality (Bruner, 1986: 11). He later comes to 

the conclusion that: ―the central concern is not how narrative as text is 

constructed, but rather how it operates as an instrument of mind in the 

construction of reality‖ (1991: 5-6).  

The credit directly goes to Baker who pioneered the application of 

narrative to translation studies, with strict emphasis that narratives do not 

represent reality, but they really construct it. ―Narratives are constructed – 

not discovered– by us in the course of making sense of reality, and they 

guide our behavior and our interaction with others‖ (Baker, 2006: 169). 

Baker does not recognize narratives as a genre or a text type, but narratives 

―cut across time and texts‖ (Baker, 2006: 4). It should be crystal clear that 

Baker does not have a theory of narrative of her own but she draws on 



25 
 

other theorists to come up with a collection of a typology of four levels 

(drawing on Somers and Gibson), eight features of narrative (drawing on 

Somers and Gibson and Bruner), the notion of ‗framing‘ that is introduced 

and tackled by several earlier theorists including Goffman (1974), where 

she defines framing as ―an active strategy that implies agency and by 

means of which we consciously participate in the construction of reality‖ 

(Baker, 2006: 106) and the notion of Fisher‘s narrative paradigm which she 

highly recommends as an effective tool that qualifies us to assess and 

basically sign in to different narratives. Baker picks up bits and pieces  

from other peoples‘ work and reshapes them in a version of a theory that is 

chiefly used to investigate the roles narrative and translation play at the 

time of violent political conflicts and to show clearly the way narratives 

and their correspondent translated versions are used by the conflicting 

parties ―to legitimize their version of events especially in view of the fact 

that political and other types of conflict today are played out in the 

international arena and can no longer be resolved by appealing to local 

constituencies alone‖ (Baker, 2006: 1). 

Translation scholars continue to see Baker‘s version of narrative as 

an effective tool to apply in translation studies, where framing, as a main 

ingredient of her version, can go well all the way through with narrative to 

transfer the contents of the narrative within new contexts through the use of 

translation.   



26 
 

In an altering world towards globalization, Boeri (2009) highlights 

―the pressing need to reflect on the socio-political profile of translators and 

interpreters, not only in the labor market of the public and private sectors, 

but also in civil society‖. She calls on translation scholars to critically 

reflect on the narratives that circulate in the field in order to bring about 

greater engagement with the role played by translation and interpreting in 

an increasingly competitive, polarized and violent society. 

Harding (2012) applies Baker‘s version of the narrative theory her 

own way and suggests some modifications and developments for Baker‘s 

version of narrative. ―This includes a revised typology of narrative, the 

combination of narratological and sociological approaches, an intratextual 

model of analysis, and a new emphasis on the importance of narrators and 

temporary narrators in the reconfiguration of narratives‖ (Harding, 2012:1).   

Harding gives a brief overview of projects of  other scholars working 

on Baker‘s narrative and quotes Amal Ayoub (2010) who focuses on the 

ways in which framing is effected at sites around text, and she investigates 

introductions, titles, cover blurbs, footnotes, and additional glossaries, 

poems, testimonials and questions. Mahmoud Al Herthani (2009) also 

focuses on paratextual material. Souhad Al Sharif (2009) turns her attention 

to translated Arabic and its impact on regional cultures and politics. 

Elliot (2012) explores an area of intersection between translation and 

narrative discourse in line with the translation of the Christian scriptures. 

―Transfigured into a narrative character, Jesus is forever changed. Further 



27 
 

translations of him and of the stories surrounding him, therefore, will 

always be simultaneously both similar and different. The referent is not 

Jesus the person, a historical man, but rather Jesus the figure, a fluid, 

literary ―creature of discourse.‖ Although Jesus is irreversibly created in 

and by narrative, the figure cannot be allowed or forced to remain fixed 

within any single narrative thereafter." 

Thawabteh (2012) explores possible avenues for translators to take a 

greater part as participants in the construction of social and political reality 

when dealing with contesting narratives. Commenting on the translation as 

the tool to enable Palestinians to understand the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, 

he highlights ―the decision-making in the process of rendering both 

narratives is a matter of life and death, due to the nature of Arab-Israeli 

conflict‖ (Thawabteh, 2012: 226). 

Caroline Summers (2014) similarly discusses the way in which 

paratext reveals political stances and at the same time is used to manipulate 

the reader, whereas Abu Bakr (2014) explores the importance of orality and 

folktales in framing and preserving Palestinian memory and identity.  

  



28 
 

 

Chapter Three 

Analysis of Data and Discussion 

3.1 Introduction  

3.2 A typology of narrative 

3.3 Features of narrativity I 

3.4 Features of narrativity II  

3.5 Framing narratives in translation   

3.6 Assessing narratives (the narrative paradigm) 

 

  



29 
 

Chapter Three 

Analysis of Data and Discussion 

3.1  Introduction  

This section of the analysis presents the data that I have collected 

shaped by my own understanding of Baker‘s version of the narrative 

theory. In other words, this is my version of story based on my findings, 

provided that the active reader usually reads more than the words and ideas, 

where a piece of writing helps define the author‘s purpose and techniques 

and sheds the light on different strategies the authors employ to signal their 

meanings. Therefore, readers of this section will be introduced to Baker‘s 

version of the narrative theory in best possible summed up, yet mindful 

way with the presentation of abundance of examples from Abdel Razek‘s 

book that can clearly define, explain and illustrate her version‘s typology, 

features and strategies of framing and assessing. The researcher‘s 

comments below those examples are meant to guide the readers to areas 

where the translator excels or errs in line with Baker‘s version of the 

theory. In this part of the research, the main concepts are defined not only 

by Baker, but also by theorists on whom Baker drew, and others who 

actively contributed to the theory. The main focus of this study however 

sticks to translation studies, so the assessment of Baker‘s version of the 

narrative theory remains what really matters along with multifaceted 

employment of translation as a weapon during conflicts. It is, therefore, 

fundamentally important for readers to keep a close eye on the concepts 



30 
 

which Baker imports from other theorists and applies on competing 

narratives to legitimize their version of events and investigate their 

usability and suitability, especially and as her version indicates, during 

conflicts. Conflicting narratives are simply the narratives of conflicting 

powers and during such times, accepted narratives are only those which 

oppose the other party‘s version of events, which shows translation as 

unvarying. Despite the detailed definitions and analysis, the reader can only 

apply just the opposite version of the narrative at hand, see to him/herself 

and test the workability of Baker‘s version of the theory.  

3.2  A typology of narrative 

Narrativity may be thought of as stories and actions in relation to 

times, selves and settings. It is a social process where stories and narratives 

are crucial to that process. ―Sociologists may be the last to enter this field –

stories- explicitly…Sociology is bound up with obtaining stories and telling 

stories. Nearly anything a sociologist might want to investigate can be done 

so from the narrative approach‖ (Plummer, 2002: 18-20).  Commenting on 

Somers and Gibson (1992, 1994), Phibbs (2008: 10) states that ―by tracing 

narratives it becomes possible to map the complex and contradictory means 

by which social relations are organized, made meaningful and maintained 

through inter-linkages within networks of relations which shift over time 

and space.‖ Somers and Gibson (1994) emphasize that narrativity is a 

social process that is embedded in four inter-related dimensions of 

narratives: ontological narrative, public narratives, conceptual or 



31 
 

disciplinary narratives and meta-narratives. About twelve years after that 

classification, narrativity is introduced into translation studies by Mona 

Baker in her book ―Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account‖. In this 

book, Baker presents the theory intensively and provides exceptional 

insights into translation studies with numerous examples that are directly 

related to the field of translation studies. Drawing on Somers and Gibson 

(1994), Baker and other scholars like Julie Borei (2008) and Luis Perez-

Conzaez (2010) discuss those four types of narratives, and explore this 

model in relation to interpreting and translation and the way in which 

translators and interpreters mediate the circulation of the narrative in 

society.  

3.2.1 Ontological narratives  

Somers and Gibson (1994: 60) said, ―Ontological narratives are the 

stories that social actors use to make sense of –indeed, in order to act in- 

their lives. Ontological narratives are used to define who we are; this in 

turn is a precondition for knowing what to do.‖  Baker (2006), on the other 

hand, capitalizes on the work of those two theorists and redefines the 

‗ontological narratives‘ in a way that meets her purpose of study. To make 

the least out of this, ontological narratives define who we are and show our 

position in the world. ―Ontological narratives make identity and the self 

something that one becomes‖ (Somers and Gibson, 1994: 61). This means 

that the term ‗identity‘ is changeable over time and that this depends on 

another set of narratives to which we subscribe at a certain point of time 



32 
 

(i.e. public narratives). Baker (2009) stresses that it is almost impossible for 

translators and interpreters to avoid translating autobiographies whose 

narratives may clash with the narratives to which the translators and 

interpreters subscribe, where the outcome is almost always traumatic. She 

further stresses that when personal narratives are translated into another 

language, they are changed and reappropriated. Citation of clear examples 

usually makes it easier to understand, therefore let us consider the 

following examples from Abel Rakek‘s book and analyze them with the 

use of Baker‘s themes and terminology:- 

Example (1): 

Source Text Translation 

(86"سعبىخ ال ؽنٌ، ٗدِٝ ال دٗىخ" )  

 
―Islam: A message from God rather 

than a system of government; a religion 

rather than a state‖ (81) 

  Baker (2006) sticks to the ontological perspective of the narrative, 

which she borrows from Fisher (1987), modifies and hence believes that 

the reader of the text has his/her own solid and unchangeable 

preconceptions about the text (his/her own narrative) that form the context 

of the narrative at question. The Muslim understating about the example in 

question stipulates that Islam is both a religion and a state, where it is 

almost impossible to question this belief that already exists in their minds 

regardless of the strong arguments they are offered. An analytical 

understanding of Baker‘s version of narrative shows that an already shaped 

understanding of the text resides in the minds of the readers ages before 

reading the narrative in question. ―Narration is the context for interpreting 



33 
 

and assessing all communication – not a mode of discourse laid on by a 

creator‘s deliberate choice but the shape of knowledge as we first 

apprehend it‖ (Fisher 1987: 193).‖ (Baker, 2006: 9). That Muslim belief 

stands for the context for all narratives provided. What lives in their minds 

indeed is the transcendence of belief (understanding), which they are 

supposed to protect and to strictly avoid exposing it to possible harmful 

narratives. The translator is aware of the fact that the Muslim 

understanding of religious narratives and historic texts based on those 

narratives precedes in existence the narrative in question, where Muslims 

are not ready to give themselves a chance to understand the author‘s 

intended meaning. Despite this, the translator makes some addition in the 

target text in what can possibly be a desperate decision to further 

strengthen the author‘s message.  

Example (2): 

Source Text Translation 

" ٗاّٜ ألسع٘- اُ أساد هللا ىٜ ٍ٘اطيخ رىل 

اىجؾش- أُ أرذاسك ٍب أػشف فٜ ٕزٓ اى٘سقبد 

ٍِ ّقض. ٗاال فقذ رشمذ ثٖب ثِٞ أٝذٛ 

اىجبؽضِٞ أصشا ػغٚ أُ ٝغذٗا فٞٔ شٞئب ٍِ عذح 

)ٍقذٍخ اىشأٛ، فٜ طشاؽخ ال رش٘ثٖب ٍَبساح"

ف( -اىنبرت  
 

 ―I earnestly wish to be able to 

amend the weaknesses of this work, 

which I am the first to 

acknowledge. And if that is not 

possible, I will have at least 

provided new ideas on the subject; 

ideas which I express to other 

scholars with the utmost candour 

and honesty.‖ (22) 

To make Baker‘s ontological view of narrative even clearer, she says 

―narrative tends on the whole to be treated as the principal and inescapable 

mode by which we experience the world‖ (Baker, 2006: 9), restricting on 



34 
 

the same page all types of communication to narrative where ―the status of 

narrative as an optional mode of communication or as a meta-code that cuts 

across and underpins all modes of communication.‖ Accordingly, and in 

spite of the fact that Abdel Razek‘s arguments look as strong as a solid 

base that can shake the Muslim belief, Baker‘s ontological view of 

narrative prevails as the taken for granted Muslim narrative is indeed the 

principal and inescapable mode and the meta-code which trashes all offered 

narratives. Abdel Razek himself believes in the need to go back to his 

already ground-breaking arguments and further enhance them or else other 

intellectuals should get the job done if he himself did not have the chance 

to do it.   

It is therefore evident that the translator‘s decision to use the phrase 

‗weaknesses of this work‘ to convey the author‘s message ― ٍٓب أػشف فٜ ٕز

 is not a successful translation decision as the author‘s ‖اى٘سقبد ٍِ ّقض

intended meaning here stands for the kind of enhancement that could be 

added to the already strong argument to make it even stronger to the degree 

of shaking the Muslim understanding that is already in place. The author 

really wishes he added much more of religious and historic facts to his 

book but at a certain point of time, he decides to publish it, pledging that if 

that book was spared the anticipated wave of criticism, he would continue 

the work and elaborate more on it. This makes a clear support to the claim 

that the translator‘s failure to get the author‘s messages properly cause the 

distortion of the author‘s ontological (personal) narrative. The author 



35 
 

provides many textual indications to get the attention of his readers and to 

persuade them that the strengths of his arguments that are based on 

undisputed sources is a mere drop of knowledge if they only factor out and 

drop their already-existing ontological narrative. Some textual excerpts in 

support of this claim are listed in the following example:- 

Example (3): 

Source Texts Translations 

 This, then, is something that merits― "ٗاُ فٜ رىل ىَغبال ىيَقبه" )68(

examination‖ (38) 

"ال ّشٝذ أُ ّْبقشٌٖ فٜ طؾخ األؽبدٝش 

اىزٜ ٝغ٘قّٖ٘ب فٜ ٕزا اىجبة، ٗاُ مبُ ىْب 

(:6" )فٜ ٍْبقشزٌٖ فٜ رىل ٍغبه فغٞؼ  

―We do not wish to question the 

authenticity of the hadiths drawn upon 

here, although there might be a lot to 

say on that issue‖ (40) 

"ٗقذ مبّذ رؾغِ ٍْبقشزٌٖ فٜ رىل، 

ىٞؼشف٘ا أُ ريل اىؼجبساد ٗأٍضبىٖب فٜ ىغبُ 

اىششع، ال رشٍٜ اىٚ شٜء ٍِ اىَؼبّٜ 

َ٘ا أُ ٝؾَي٘ا اىزٜ اعزؾذصٕ٘ب ثؼذ، صٌ صػ

(:6" )ػيٖٞب ىغخ االعالً  

―We would embark on a discussion of 

the significance of these words if we 

wanted to illustrate that these 

expressions, as used in the religious 

law, do not carry the same 

interpretations as those introduced 

later, in Islamic discourse, after the 

fact‖ (40) 

"ّزغبٗص ىٌٖ ػِ مو ريل األث٘اة ٍِ 

 اىغذه..." ):6( 

―We will, however, disregard these 

above-mentioned controversial 

questions and assume that all the 

afore-mentioned…―(40) 

"ٗارا أسدد ٍضٝذا فٜ ٕزا اىجؾش فبسعغ 

اىٚ "مزبة اىخالفخ" ىيؼالٍخ اىغٞش رٍ٘ظ 

ٍْٔ ثٞبُ  اسّيذ. ففٜ اىجبة اىضبّٜ ٗاىضبىش

(67" )ٍَزغ ٍقْغ  

―If one wished to enquire further into 

this topic one could consult the 

volume The Caliphate by the great 

scholar Sir Thomas Arnold. The 

explanation offered in the second and 

third chapters of his work is both 

charming and persuasive.‖ (38) 

 

 



36 
 

Those source excerpts clearly highlight Abdel Razek‘s call to the 

Muslim public to free themselves from their preconceptions in order to see 

the strength of his argument, and the future coming pieces of evidence that 

he would add to his argument had he been spared the anticipated wave of 

criticism and rejection.   

To ascertain total clarity of the ontological view of narrative, let us 

consider the following example and analyze it:- 

Example (4): 

Source Text Translation 

دّٗل ؽ٘اس خبىذ ثِ اى٘ىٞذ ،ٍغ ٍبىل ثِ ّ٘ٝشح 

، ٕٗ٘ اىزٛ ،اؽذ أٗىئل اىزِٝ عٌَٕ٘ ٍشرذِٝ

سأعٔ ثؼذ  أٍش خبىذ فؼشثذ ػْقٔ، صٌ أخزد

 (:;" )رىل فغؼيذ أصقٞخ ىقذس

 ―In this connection we can examine 

again the words of Malik ibn 

Nuwayra to Khalid ibn al-Walid. 

Malik was one of the so-called 

apostates who was executed upon 

the orders of Khalid (and whose 

skull was subsequently used as a 

prop for a cooking-pot over a camp 

fire)" (113). 

Despite the fact that some Muslim books and websites give currency 

to this narration: ―One day, a military team of Khalid caught Malik bin 

Nuwayra and his eleven men and took them to the commander, Khalid. 

There was an argument whether Malik was an apostate (murtad) or not. 

Khalid believed that Malik was an apostate and had him executed. Thus, 

Malik's wife and his children became slaves. Then, Khalid married Malik's 

wife‖ (Questions on Islam, 2017). Although this is a Muslim Sunni 

undisputed narrative, there is no way on earth that could persuade Muslims 

to consider this narrative and give it a thought simply because Malik‘s 



37 
 

execution then would be motivated by Khalid‘s love to the man‘s wife. As 

a way out however, Khalid‘s ontological narrative inspired by the Muslim 

public narrative about the compulsory payment of the Zakat paved the way 

for him to execute the husband and win the widow woman whom he did 

marry the night of execution. Muslims are strictly imprisoned with Khalid‘s 

image as a first-class companion of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), who 

could not commit such a horrible mistake; on the other hand, and despite 

the fact that Malik was a true Muslim, the majority of Muslims, and in a 

bid to justify the execution, believe that Malik was an apostate and 

deserved to be executed; that was Khalid‘s individual interpretation, and 

became the entire Muslim community‘s standard and collective 

interpretation of the Islamic teachings. Zakat which is a pillar of Muslim 

faith cannot be denied by any Muslim as any Muslim who drops it, shall be 

executed by the Muslim state. That is basically the essence and purpose of 

Abu Baker‘s wars against the apostates and those who suspend the payment 

of the Zakat after the death of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). It is 

needless and a waste of time and effort to discuss the issue that Khalid 

tortured Malik ―whose skull was subsequently used as a prop for a 

cooking-pot over a camp fire.‖ Omar bin Al Khattab, the second Muslim 

caliph, categorically rejected Khalid‘s attitude and demanded that Khalid 

be killed for killing a Muslim (Malik), but Abu Bakr rejected Omar‘s 

demand and said ―I shall not kill him. For he has interpreted the order 

wrongly,‖ (Abdel Razek, 2012: 114).  



38 
 

3.2.2 Public narratives   

According to Somers and Gibson (1994: 62), public narratives which 

could also be called ‗shared narratives‘ are ―those narratives attached to 

cultural and institutional formations larger than the single individual, to 

inter-subjective networks or institutions, however local or grand.‖  They 

say that the public narratives are the stories which circulate amongst groups 

larger than the individual, such as in the family, workplace, church, 

government or nation. Theorists generally agreed upon the fact that the 

public narratives circulate amongst groups of people larger than the 

individual in a bid to differentiate the public narratives from the ontological 

narratives. ―Public narratives are not neutral but shape and are in turn 

shaped by particular understandings of the world which tend to prioritize 

one meaning over another‖ (Phibbs, 2008: 2). Boeri (2008: 26) goes a step 

further to explore ‗professional narratives‘ or ―stories and explanations that 

professionals elaborate for themselves and others about the nature and 

ethos of their activity.‖ 

The following example illustrates a public narrative manifested in 

the claim that Muslims, since the early days of Islam, have an undisputed 

and successive consensus (Ijma‘) for the investiture of a caliph and never to 

leave this position vacant. Muslim consensus is clearly stated in the 

following excerpt:- 

  



39 
 

Example (5): 

Source Text Translation 

"صػَ٘ا ٗقذ فبرٌٖ مزبة هللا رؼبىٚ ٗعْخ 

ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص أّٔ ر٘ارش اعَبع اىَغيَِٞ فٜ  سع٘ىٔ

اىظذس األٗه، ثؼذ ٗفبح اىْجٜ ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص، ػيٚ اٍزْبع 

خي٘ اى٘قذ ٍِ اٍبً ... ٗىٌ ٝضه اىْبط ػيٚ 

ّظت رىل، فٜ مو ػظش اىٚ صٍبّْب ٕزا، ٍِ 

 (16)"اٍبً ٍزجغ فٜ مو ػظش

 ―For want of evidence from the 

Qur'an and the sunna, it was 

maintained that: After the Prophet's 

death, there was ongoing consensus 

among the Muslims during the first 

era of Islam to ensure that the 

position of the imam did not fall 

vacant… From that time on, in 

every age, Muslims acted likewise 

to nominate an imam to administer 

their affair‖.(43) 

 The Muslim consensus which stands initially for the Muslim public 

narrative in the source text includes two main components ― اٍزْبع خي٘ اى٘قذ "

ّظت اٍبً ٍزجغ فٜ مو ػظش ...ٍِ اٍبً ; it seems that the translator manages to 

render the first part into the target text, but fails on the other one. The 

Muslim public narrative stipulates that the imam (Caliph) should copy and 

imitate Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Therefore, (Muslims acted likewise 

to nominate an imam to administer their affair) _is rendered inaccurately 

(or almost falsely) in the target text as an equivalent phrase ( ّظت اٍبً ٍزجغ )

 of the source text. The translator fails to convey the intended فٜ مو ػظش

cultural equivalent of all the words which come in the excerpt of the source 

text (individually and collectively) to come up with an English phrase that 

distorts not only the translation but also the Muslim public narrative itself. 

The translator uses the word (nominate) as an equivalent for the source 

word ( (ّظت _ without realizing that the public Muslims do not take part in 

choosing and nominating an imam but only a limited group of them, called 



40 
 

―Ahl Al Hal Wal-Aqd‖ which is defined in Wikipedia as ―those qualified to 

appoint or depose a caliph or another ruler on behalf of the Ummah‖ takes 

part in this process, whereas the Muslim masses attend the celebrations at 

the time of the investiture of the caliph and give him their pledges and 

allegiance at the mosque. Moreover, the translator fails to render proper 

linguistic and cultural translation of the source phrase  (اٍبً ٍزجغ فٜ مو ػظش ) 

which he conveys as (an imam to administer their affair) in the target text 

and culture. The correspondent target phrase however should convey the 

message that the key qualification of the nominated caliph is his 

willingness, readiness and capabilities to copy and imitate the prophet. The 

phrase (to administer their affair)_ is the translator‘s addition which does 

not have anything to do with the source text. The translator‘s lack of 

knowledge of the Muslim public narrative related to this example causes a 

clear translation failure on the one hand, while on the other, the translator 

may purposely intend to distort the Muslim public narrative, especially 

when the translation of the opening of the paragraph is analyzed. The 

translator renders the source phrase  ٔصػَ٘ا ٗقذ فبرٌٖ مزبة هللا رؼبىٚ ٗعْخ سع٘ى"

 as ―For want of evidence from the Qur'an and the sunna‖ in the target ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص 

culture to highlight the Muslim failure to come up with pieces of evidence 

from the Holy Qur‘an and the Saying of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) 

to support their claim (the public narrative). To clarify this, let us consider 

the following example to illustrate the Muslim public narrative:- 

  



41 
 

Example (6): 

Source Text Translation 

ٗمزىل فشب ثِٞ اىَغيَِٞ ٍْز اىظذس االٗه، "

اىضػٌ ثأُ اىخالفخ ٍقبً دْٜٝ، ّٗٞبثخ ػِ 

 طبؽت اىششٝؼخ ػيٞٔ اىغالً" )606(

 ―Thus, did the erroneous view gain 

ground, from the early days of 

Islam, that the caliphate was a 

religious office and that the caliph 

was the author, by delegation, of 

religious law‖. (116) 

"اىخالفخ ٍقبً دْٜٝ، ّٗٞبثخ ػِ طبؽت اىششٝؼخ ػيٞٔ اىغالً ”is simply the Muslim 

public narrative which the translator unjustifiably describes as ―erroneous‖, 

a description that is not there in the source text but added by the translator 

to give her prior judgment about that particular Muslim public narrative.  

This judgment badly harms faithfulness, but as Nida (1964: 154) says ―the 

human translator is not a machine, and he inevitably leaves the stamp of his 

own personality on any translation he makes‖. According to the teachings 

of Islam, and although the caliph enjoys a prominent status, he cannot be 

―the author, by delegation, of religious law‖ as rendered by the translator in 

the target culture. The caliph is the successor or the deputy of the prophet, 

and that is the direct equivalent for the Arabic phrase ( ؽت اىششٝؼخ ّٗٞبثخ ػِ طب

 but the caliph is not allowed by all means to amend or modify ,(ػيٞٔ اىغالً

the religious laws. 

3.2.3 Conceptual (disciplinary) narratives  

Phibbs (2008) argues that the conceptual narratives may be regarded 

as the theories and analytic categories that are specific to a discipline or a 

profession. That argument is no different from that of Somers‘ and 

Gibson‘s (1994: 63), who define conceptual narratives as ―the concepts and 



42 
 

explanations that we construct as social researchers‘, stressing that those 

narratives can be attached to any academic discipline.‖ Capitalizing on 

those theorists, Baker (2006: 39) redefines conceptual (disciplinary) 

narratives as: ―the stories and explanations that scholars in any field 

elaborate for themselves and others about their object of inquiry.‖ 

Commenting on the purpose of those narratives, she stresses that the 

conceptual narratives are usually centered around the object of the study. 

The disciplinary narratives, according to her, are there to help us make 

sense of the world, and the particular aspect of the world which they help 

us to understand is our chosen area of study. To illustrate the conceptual 

narrative from Abdel Razek‘s book, the researcher chooses the theme of 

―Jihad‖ or the ‗holy war‘ in which Muslims intensively and excessively 

have been involved. There is indeed a great deal of confusion in the West 

when it comes to Jihad. The Muslim conceptual narrative is that their 

ancestors had to wage the holy war (Jihad) to deliver their Prophet‘s 

message to all the mankind, so that people embrace Islam or end up objects 

under the authority of the Islamic state which treats them justly till a time 

comes, and they convert to Islam on their own free will. The Muslim 

conceptual narrative clearly indicates that the Muslim expansion is aimed 

to introduce the various nations to the direct and unaltered word of God 

revealed to their Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) who was sent to all 

mankind. The source text clearly tackles the aim of Jihad and delivers the 

Muslim conceptual narrative in the following excerpt which the translator 

conveys in the target culture in an obvious short form:- 



43 
 

Example (7): 

Source Text Translation 

عالٍٞخ ىَب مبُ اىغٖبد فٖٞب ٗاىَيخ اال"

ٍششٗػب، ىؼًَ٘ اىذػ٘ح، ٗؽَو اىنبفخ ػيٚ 

دِٝ االعالً ؽ٘ػب أٗ مشٕب، ارؾذد فٖٞب 

اىخالفخ ٗاىَيل، ىز٘عٔ اىش٘مخ ٍِ اىقبئَِٞ ثٖب 

اىَٖٞب ٍؼب، ٗأٍب ٍب ع٘ٙ اىَيخ االعالٍٞخ فيٌ 

رنِ دػ٘رٌٖ ػبٍخ، ٗال اىغٖبد ػْذٌٕ 

ظبس اىقبئٌ ٍششٗػب، اال فٜ اىَذافؼخ فقؾ، ف

ثأٍش اىذِٝ فٖٞب ال ٝؼْٞٔ شٜء ٍِ عٞبعخ 

اىَيل، ألٌّٖ غٞش ٍنيفِٞ ثبىزغيت ػيٚ األٌٍ 

األخشٙ. ٗاَّب ٌٕ ٍطي٘ثُ٘ ثئقبٍخ دٌْٖٝ فٜ 

(78) خبطخ أّفغٌٖ اىخ".  

 ―Among all the religions, Islam is 

unique in encompassing both 

spiritual and temporal power‖. (74) 

 

The translator fails to provide a translation for this source paragraph 

that is believed to be fundamentally important in presenting the Muslim 

conceptual narrative. It is inevitably assumed that the translator leaves out 

this portion of the text on purpose as she knows in advance that the 

inclusion of any kind of justification to Jihad will be judged by her readers 

as a defense and that is categorically rejected in the target culture where the 

translator risks her version‘s circulation. Readership indeed plays a pivotal 

role and is usually taken into great consideration. Yet, a whole detailed 

page of the source text cannot be rendered in the target culture in a 14-

word-sentence, (Among all the religions, Islam is unique in encompassing 

both spiritual and temporal power)_ unless the translator seeks to please his 

target audience. To make this short, the translator purposely drops this 

portion of the source text in a bid to bridge the gap between the West and 

Islam and to eliminate the talk about Jihad.  



44 
 

The counter conceptual narrative on Jihad (i.e. the Western-Christian 

conceptual narrative) makes another good illustration for this level of 

narrative. Westerners believe that Islam was spread by the sword and that 

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was a king. That narrative that Islam was 

spread by the sword still has a wide currency to justify the fact that people 

were converted to Islam because they had no other choice or rather they 

had to choose between conversion and death. ―There was no peaceful 

coexistence; there were only brief periods in between jihad invasions. 

Christian overtures to establish a lasting peace accord were invariably 

answered by a repetition of the triple choice: conversion, submission, or 

war.‖ (Spencer, 2018: 139). The following examples illustrate this level of 

typology:- 

Example (8): 

Source Text Translation 

" ٍٗب ػشفْب فٜ ربسٝخ اىشعو سعال ؽَو 

اىْبط ػيٚ االَٝبُ ثبهلل ثؾذ اىغٞف، ٗال غضا 

(75")قٍ٘ب فٜ عجٞو االقْبع ثذْٝٔ  

―No prophet, throughout history, has 

ever tried to bring people to believe 

in God by the sword, or conquered a 

people so as to convince them to join 

his faith‖. (71) 

The translator seems to be faithful to this piece of the source text and 

renders in the target culture a fair equivalent in a clear bid to highlight the 

ugliness of conquering people and forcing them to embrace Islam by force 

in a marked contrast to other prophets and their followers who had never 

tried to bring people to believe in God by sword. The translator 

undoubtedly subscribes to the Western conceptual narrative regarding the 

spread of Islam with sword and the direct responsibility of Prophet 



45 
 

Mohammed (PBUH) who was not a mere messenger from God but also a 

king who established an empire. Furthermore, the following episode of the 

Western conceptual narrative on the spread of Islam becomes more 

helpful:- 

Example (9): 

Source Text Translation 

"ٗظبٕش اٗه ٕٗيخ اُ اىغٖبد ال ٝنُ٘ ىَغشد 
اىذػ٘ح اىٚ اىذِٝ ، ٗال ىؾَو اىْبط ػيٚ 

ُ اىغٖبد  ٘االَٝبُ ثبهلل ٗسع٘ىٔ ، ٗ اَّب ٝن
(71) "ىزضجٞذ  اىغيطبُ ، ٗر٘عٞغ اىَيل  

 

 
 “It is evident from a glance that the 

jihad is neither carried out 

specifically to rally men to the new 

faith, nor to make them believe in 

God or His Prophet. Rather, the 

jihad is launched to reinforce an 

established power and to extend the 

empire.”(71)  

The translator fails to render a proper cultural equivalent for ىَغشد

ح(اىذػ٘ ) which can easily be (preach Islam) but the translator‘s word choice 

(to rally men to the new faith) has other connotations that indicate 

(according to the word‘s definition in the dictionary) that the aim is to bring 

those men together in order to provide support or make a shared effort. The 

translator aims with this word choice to stress that the aim of Islam is 

always Jihad and conquering other people. Not only that but the translator 

also misses and errs with a key issue which touches on a pillar of the 

Muslim faith when he renders ( الَٝبُ ثبهلل ٗسع٘ىٔا ) as (believe in God or His 

Prophet) where the use of ―or‖ indicates that the a new convert to Islam can 

be a real Muslim in case s/he believes in either Allah or Mohammed and in 

so doing, the translator destroys the fundamental foundation of Islam that 



46 
 

strictly requires the belief in both Allah and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) 

together. Another mistake that the translator commits can be highlighted 

when he renders (اىَيل) as (the empire). The translator ignores the 

acclaimed Muslim conceptual narrative that the intended meaning of   ىزضجٞذ

، ٗر٘عٞغ اىَيل اىغيطبُ   _is not aimed for the personal gain of the caliphs (to 

reinforce an established power and to extend the empire) but it is all 

referred in this case to the Islamic rule and expansion. That is yet another 

example which proves that the translator never signs in for the Muslim 

conceptual narrative, whereas the following example sums it all up:- 

Example (10): 

Source Text  Translation 

"ال شل فٜ أُ اىؾنٍ٘خ اىْج٘ٝخ مبُ فٖٞب ثؼغ 

ٍب ٝشجٔ أُ ٝنُ٘ ٍِ ٍظبٕش اىؾنٍ٘خ 

(71" )اىغٞبعٞخ ٗاصبس اىغيطْخ ٗاىَيل  

 

 “There is no doubt that the 

Prophet's authority included 

certainelements that could be 

compared with those of a temporal 

government, thereby reflecting some 

aspects of power and regality.”(70) 

Several points in this source excerpt can be addressed to highlight 

the translator‘s failures to render accurate equivalents in the target culture 

including  (اىؾنٍ٘خ اىْج٘ٝخ )which is rendered as (the Prophet's authority). This 

translator‘s choice of the word ―authority‖ is made in order to harmonize 

with the Western narrative and please the target audience whose narrative 

about the prophet is that Mohammed was a mere tyrant who held absolute 

and unlimited power. This Arabic expression (اىؾنٍ٘خ اىْج٘ٝخ ) can easily be 

rendered in the target culture as ―the prophetic governance‖. The use of the 

word ―elements‖ in the target text to stand for the Arabic word ―ٍظبٕش‖ 



47 
 

seems to be unfair to the source text. The word ―elements‖ is loaded with 

materialistic denotations which do not fit for the intended meaning, 

whereas a word like ―features‖ can surely be a better choice. It is evident 

moreover that the translator ignores the connotation of the word (ثؼغ ) in 

the source text, which clearly indicates that those features of the prophetic 

governance are the minimum. The translator is happy to render (ثؼغ ) in 

the target text as (certain).  

3.2.4 Meta-narratives  

―Meta-narratives are narratives that transcend the boundary of an 

individual profession or discipline… they may also include the master 

narrative of contemporary social life, such as democracy, freedom or the 

doctrine of progress‖ (Phibbs, 2008: 4). Sombers and Gibson (1994: 64) 

define the meta-narratives as ―master narratives in which we are embedded 

as contemporary actors… the epic dramas of our times.‖ 

―An interesting question, and one that Somers and Gibson do not 

address, is how a meta-narrative comes to enjoy the currency it does over 

considerable stretches of time and across extensive geographical 

boundaries‖ (Baker, 2006: 45). She stresses that the scale, the spread, the 

survival and the circulation of the meta-narrative which is controlled by the 

economic and political dominance is the main point which differentiates 

the public or the conceptual narratives from the meta-narratives. ―Generally 

speaking a narrative is required to have considerable temporal and 



48 
 

geographical spread, as well as a sense of inevitability or inescapability, to 

qualify as a meta-narrative‖ (Baker, 2006: 167). 

The Muslim meta-narrative of the caliphate, for example, is the 

invention of the early Muslim political elite and that invention is followed 

and adopted by the majority of Muslims until the present moment. ―Today, 

at least, Muslim countries have little or no political power, and yet the 

meta-narrative of Islam probably has wider currency than any other 

religious narrative, with hundreds of millions of followers worldwide‖ 

(Baker, 2006: 45).  

According to Sayyid (2014), the caliphate to the Muslim earlier and 

contemporary political elite manifests Muslim unity, self-control, and 

historical continuity as a community, which is more than a political project. 

He says: ―the emergence of the caliphate as part of the chitter-chatter of 

Western geopolitical discourse can be seen in the way in which it is 

deemed to be one of the possible futures of the world‖ (Sayyid, 2014: 118-

119). The following examples show how the Muslim meta-narrative about 

the caliphate is handled in the translation of Abdel Razek‘s book:-  

Example (11): 

Source Text Translation 

"قبى٘ا اُ اىخالفخ رز٘قف ػيٖٞب اقبٍخ اىشؼبئش 
(55")اىذْٝٞخ ٗطالػ اىشػٞخ  

 

 “It is the proposition that the 

caliphate is a necessary condition 

for the practice of religion and the 

realisation of the general good of 

the Muslim community”. (52) 

 



49 
 

The Muslim meta-narrative stipulates that the caliphate is the sole 

foundation of the Muslim religious and temporal life. The caliphate is not 

therefore ‗a necessary condition‘, it is much more than that. The translator 

renders ―a necessary condition‖ for the Arabic phrase ( يٖٞبرز٘قف ػ  ). This 

shows that the translator‘s word choice lacks the basic religious and 

cultural connotations of the Arabic phrase. The caliphate is a matter of life 

and death for almost the Muslim majority who believe that its absence 

leaves the Muslim body practically dead. It is obvious therefore that the 

translator does not subscribe to the Muslim meta-narrative on the caliphate.  

Meta-narratives are originally public narratives or conceptual 

narratives but gain great influence and power worldwide. Public or 

conceptual narratives exist and are situated within a culture of a certain 

nation, but fail to cross the geographical boundaries of that nation. 

Therefore, the international scale or the global spread is the point which 

creates the meta-narratives, but still the public or conceptual narratives line 

up as potential candidates for meta-narratives under the condition that they 

directly influence the lives of millions of people globally.  

Baker (2006) believes that translators and interprets are the only 

means that are capable to upgrade the public or conceptual narratives into 

meta-narratives. ―Finally, it goes without saying that narratives do not 

travel across linguistic and cultural boundaries, and certainly do not 

develop into global meta-narratives, without the direct involvement of 

translators and interpreters‖ (Baker, 2006: 48). 



50 
 

According to Somers‘ and Gibson‘s typology, all the religious 

narratives could be classified as meta-narratives, not public narratives; 

however, Baker draws the attention of the researchers about the thin line 

which separates the meta-narratives from the public narratives, and insists 

on its existence. Baker makes it crystal clear that ―religious narratives such 

as those of Christianity, Islam and Judaism may be considered meta- rather 

than public narratives, according to Somers‘ and Gibson‘s typology, though 

the borderline between the two is not easy to draw‖ (Baker, 2006: 175). 

―The Western discovery of the salience of the caliphate in the 

contemporary world owes a great deal to the War on Terror‖ (Sayyid, 

2014: 119). He argues that ―the growing prominence of the idea of the 

caliphate among Muslims can be seen as a dawning recognition that the 

institution of the caliphate may provide an escape route for Muslims from a 

world of constant subjugation and marginalisation.‖  

About a century ago, Abdel Razek paved the way and provided the 

tools for a counter meta-narrative on the caliphate when he clearly 

expressed his ideas about the caliphate in the following examples:- 

Example (12): 

Source Text Translation 

فئَّب مبّذ اىخالفخ ٗىٌ رضه ّنجخ ػيٚ االعالً "

(58")ٗاىَغيَِٞ، ْٗٝج٘ع شش ٗفغبد  

 

 ―The caliphate has always been, 

and still remains, a disaster for 

Islam and for Muslims. It has been 

a constant source of evil and 

corruption‖ (54) 



51 
 

This example shows to a great extent faithful translation, and it can 

be used to illustrate the process of upgrading the public or conceptual 

narratives into the status of meta-narratives. This example clearly shows 

how a conceptual narrative (counter one) that is created locally can fly over 

the geographical boundaries and reach the status of a meta-narrative. This 

is possible only when it is translated. Then, it reaches new audience who 

adopt it to challenge the dominant Muslim meta-narrative about the 

caliphate. The following example further illustrates the counter meta-

narrative about the caliphate:- 

Example (13): 

Source Text Translation 

"مبُ ٍِ ٍظيؾخ اىغالؽِٞ أُ ٝشٗع٘ا رىل 

اىخطأ ثِٞ اىْبط، ؽزٚ ٝزخزٗا ٍِ اىذِٝ 

دسٗػب رؾَٜ ػشٗشٌٖ ٗرزٗد اىخبسعِٞ 

(601")ػيٌٖٞ  

 

 ―It was in the interest of the rulers 

to propagate this fiction among the 

people. They did so with a view to 

protecting their throne and 

suppressing their opponents in the 

name of religion‖(116) 

The translator shows that she does not subscribe to the Muslim meta-

narrative on the restoration of the caliphate. She renders the word ―fiction‖ 

in the target text to convey the Arabic source word ―اىخطأ‖. Her aim of her 

word choice here is to perpetuate the idea that the caliphate itself is a 

fictional invention of the early Muslims and that the caliphate does not 

have anything to do with Islam and its foundations in the first place. The 

use of the word ―fiction‖ aims to underline the claim that neither Allah nor 

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) mentioned the caliphate in one way or 

another, so the Muslim meta-narrative, according to dictionaries including 



52 
 

Cambridge Dictionary, is based on imaginary characters and events, not 

facts and real people.   

3.3  Features of narrativity I 

3.3.1 Relationality   

Drawing on an agreement between Bruner (1991) and Somers and 

Gibson (1994) in defining relationality, Baker (2006:61) concludes that ―it 

is impossible for the human mind to make sense of isolated events or of a 

patchwork of events that are not constituted as a narrative.‖ Relationality 

initially is the relevance of one event to the other within a final coherent 

entity that makes the narrative, where the human mind falls short to 

comprehend the isolated events that come on their own and not presented 

in a narrative .The human mind cannot understand what those isolated 

events really mean. ―The act of constructing a narrative, moreover, is 

considerably more than ‗selecting‘ events either from real life, from 

memory, or from fantasy and then placing them in an appropriate order. 

The events themselves need to be constituted in the light of an overall 

narrative- in Propp‘s terms, to be made ―functions‖ of the story‖ (Bruner, 

1991: 8). In his “hermeneutic composability”, Bruner argues that narratives 

can be interpreted only in terms of the role and function of the series of 

events which originally constitute the story. ―A narrative consists of 

different parts that make up a whole, but the viability and coherence of that 

whole depends on how the parts ‗mesh together‘, how they are ‗made to 

live together‖ (Baker, 2006: 62). Somers and Gibson (1994) believe that 



53 
 

events must be presented within the light of a narrative. ―The connectivity 

of parts is precisely why narrativity turns "events" into episodes, whether 

the sequence of episodes is presented or experienced in anything 

resembling chronological order‖ (Somers and Gibson, 1994: 28). This can 

be done with the use of the casual emplotment. Baker (2006) makes it clear 

that the relationality of narratives cannot allow ―straightforward 

importation of ‗parts‘ from other narratives, as in the process of importing 

elements from another narrative, both the original narrative and our own 

narrative are inevitably reconstituted‖ (Baker, 2006: 62). 

To illustrate this feature, the researcher opts for two terms to which 

the translator decides not to give English equivalents but to provide them in 

their transliteration forms in the English correspondent translation 

including the term ―caliph‖ along with its derivate ―caliphate‖ and the term 

―Jihad‖.   

The terms ―اىخيٞفخ-caliph‖ and its derivative ―اىخالفخ-caliphate‖ are 

associated in the target culture (English speaking countries) with Jihad, 

conquer, Islam‘s spread with the sword, Muslim dominance and 

extremism, terror and other undesirable associations, which could have 

been avoided had the translator decided to avoid the transliteration of the 

term ―caliph‖ and replace it with an English equivalent like a king, a ruler, 

a prince, a president, a head or any other word which can give this 

denotation. It is noteworthy here to mention that the translator repeats the 

word ―caliph‖ and its derivative ―caliphate‖ 34 times in the introduction to 



54 
 

the translation. The following table (Table 1) shows the number of times 

the word and its derivatives appear in the various chapters of the 

translation.  

Table (1): shows the repetitions of the word caliph and its derivatives 

in the translations 

The words 

which appear 

in the 

translation 

caliph caliphs caliphate caliphal Caliph‘s Khalifah 

The number 

of repetitions 

of those words 

95 18 174 4 9 3 

Abdel Razek‘s main objective of his book is to highlight what he 

solidly believes to be a fact that ―the caliphate is not among the tenets of 

the faith‖ (Abdel Razek, 2012: 117) and the translator is logically supposed 

to join forces with the writer in this regard to promote the caliphate‘s 

counter narrative. The translator has two options: First, is transliterating the 

term ( اىخالفخ-caliphate) and its other derivatives in order to give more 

importance to her translation which can easily be one of the supporting 

pieces of evidence in the West‘s war on terror and the second is giving 

English equivalents for those terms in a bid to extract them from the 

Western target culture and also to avoid any kind of activation of the 

Western anti-Muslim narratives inspired by the living associations of the 

terms. At the end of the day, the caliphate is a source cultural term that 

should be restricted to the Muslim public narratives, and never paves the 

way for it to become a part of the counter meta-narrative about Islam, 

taking into account that the translator of the book is a Muslim who is 



55 
 

definitely aware of the narratives that could be activated in the West when 

the terms reappear to produce what Baker (2006: 66) labels as ―undesirable 

interpretive frame.‖  

It is a unanimously agreed-upon fact that ―caliph‖ in the political 

context is a Muslim-made term which is originally derived from the verse:  

الئَِنِخ إِّ ِٜ َعبِػٌو فِٜ األَْسِع َخِيٞفَخ  ― ََ إِْر قَبَه َسثَُّل ِىْي َٗ ‖ (Holy Quran, 2: 30). ―Muhsin 

Khan interprets ( خيٞفخ ) as mankind (generation after generation) on earth; 

Pickthall interprets it as ―to place a viceroy in the earth‖. Sahih 

International interprets it as ―a successive authority‖; Shakir interprets it as 

―a Khalif‖; Dr. Ghali interprets it as a successor; Yusuf Ali and Abu Ala 

Maududi (With Tafsir) interpret it as ―a vicegerent on earth‖, whereas Dr. 

Mustafa Khatab in the Clear Qur‘an interprets it as ―a successive human 

authority on earth‖ (quran.com/2/30 translations). ―There are those who 

develop an argument from this, concluding that Abu Bakr's succession of 

Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was a succession in the full sense of the 

word; that, because he had succeeded the Prophet, and because the Prophet 

was a vicegerent of God, Abu Bakr, too, had become the vicegerent of 

God… Abu Bakr himself, denied this interpretation and said: ―I am in no 

way the vicegerent of God, only that of the Prophet‖ (Abdel Razek, 2012: 

112). Abdel Razek states that among all the religions, Islam is unique in 

encompassing both spiritual and temporal power, where the caliph has two 

distinct powers, one religious-spiritual and the other temporal and acts as 

the supreme spiritual and temporal leader who is chosen by God. The 



56 
 

Western narratives establish a binary relation between caliphate/ conquer 

and terrorism, as the word ―caliph‖ carries religious connotation. The only 

way out is to use the term interchangeably with king, ruler, president or any 

other description of the temporal ruler. The translator‘s choice this way 

serves as constraint in line with Baker‘s classification of the functionality 

of relationality as she says: ―relationality functions both as a constraint and 

as a resource with implicit meanings derived from the way a particular item 

functions in the public or meta-narrative circulating in the target context, 

thus obscuring or downplaying its relational load in the source 

environment‖ (Baker, 2006: 66). The translator‘s choice of transliteration 

of the term ―caliph‖ restricts the interpretation of the target audience and 

activates the Western Anti-Muslim and Anti-Caliphate narratives.   

Baker (2006) stresses that it is not preferable to use semantic 

equivalent of an item which may be uniquely sensitive in the target culture, 

needless to mention the transliteration of a term which has over history 

proved to be profoundly as such. ―Translators and interpreters at times also 

avoid the use of a direct semantic equivalent of an item in the source text or 

utterance when that equivalent is or has become embedded in a different 

and potentially negative set of narratives in the target culture‖ (Baker, 

2006: 64). 

The translator‘s choice of the transliteration of the term ―Jihad- 

 merely makes the bad situation even worse as the term undoubtedly ‖اىغٖبد

evokes Anti-Muslim narratives that are currently circulating in the West at 



57 
 

unprecedented pace. The translator repeats the term eight times in the 

translation, putting the potential equivalent (struggle) only once side by 

side with the term (Jihad). ―The first example that comes to mind during 

the time of the Prophet is that of the jihad [struggle]‖ (Abdel Razek, 2012: 

70). The translator could have easily used the term (struggle) and spared 

the Muslim world the controversy of the term (Jihad). Had the translator‘s 

choice been the term (struggle), relationality could have been as a resource 

rather than a constraint. The translator‘s choice of the transliteration of 

such fundamental terms makes her so uncritical about her own work as to 

be unconvincing at all. Although Spencer (2018: 3) acknowledges some 

Muslim contemporary attempts to reform Muslim sacred historical record, 

which for him, speaks for itself, he clearly declares their inevitable failure. 

―Only in our strange age has this quite obvious fact been controverted, with 

those who point it out being excoriated as bigots.‖ 

According to the BBC, the literal meaning of Jihad is struggle or 

effort, and it means much more than holy war. Muslims use the word Jihad 

to describe three different kinds of struggle: 

 A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as 

possible. 

 The struggle to build a good Muslim society. 

 Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/religious/holywar.shtml
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml


58 
 

Highlighting the Western Anti-Muslim narrative, however, Spencer 

(2018: 14) insists that ―the jihad- Arabic for (struggle) that Muhammad 

preached often began to refer specifically to warfare against those who 

denied his prophethood or the oneness of the deity.‖  

The transliteration of terms like ―caliphate‖ and ―Jihad‖ is conducted 

to invoke the Western narratives on Muslim violence and terror.   

3.3.2 Causal Emplotment  

Polkinghorne (1995) defines the plot simply as a type of conceptual 

scheme by which a contextual meaning of individual events can be 

displayed, then he declares that ―the thematic thread is called the plot, and 

the plot‘s integrating operation is called emplotment. When happenings are 

configured or emplotted, they take on narrative meaning‖ (Polkinghorne , 

1995: 5). That condition implies that the events would be interpreted and 

evaluated according to their contribution and influence on the final version 

of the narrative. Baker‘s understanding of Polkinghorne‘s theory on causal 

emplotment gets further simplified as she states that his theory enables us 

to ―weight and explain events rather than simply list them to turn a set of 

propositions into an intelligible sequence about which we can form an 

opinion‖ (Baker, 2006: 67). Polkinghorne provides a simple example to 

illustrate his theory: ―the king died, the prince cried‖. He explains that the 

two events are basically propositions when they are in isolation, but when 

composed into a story, a relational significance is created and this relational 



59 
 

significance becomes ―a display of the meaning-producing operation of the 

plot‖ (Polkinghorne , 1995: 5).  

According to Somers and Gibson (1994: 28), ―narratives are 

constellations of relationships (connected parts) embedded in time and 

space, constituted by causal emplotment.‖ Those theorists underline the 

importance of the casual emplotment, which translates events into episodes. 

―Casual emplotment is an accounting (however fantastic or implicit) of 

why a narrative has the storyline it does.‖ They say that it is emplotment 

that gives significance to independent instances, not their chronological or 

categorical order just to show the readers why things have happened that 

particular way, not any other one. It is rather important initially to 

reemphasize the definition of plot and to differentiate it from the storyline, 

where the first is referred to as the causal sequence of events and shows 

why things in the story have developed and happened that particular way 

whereas the storyline is defined as a series of events that occur through 

time and cannot therefore provide any value judgment. To make the long 

story short and as Baker (2006: 67) puts it: ―causal emplotment means that 

two people may agree on a set of ‗facts‘ or events but disagree strongly on 

how to interpret them in relation to each other.‖  

To clarify this with a look at Abdel Razek‘s book, it is important to 

bear in mind that the abolition of the caliphate is in itself a turning point in 

modern history and this effect can be traceable with the new world order, 

taking into account the strong rhetoric based on undoubted belief of 



60 
 

millions of Muslims around the world that their inevitable return to the top 

of the world‘s pyramid is strictly connected with the reestablishment of the 

Muslim caliphate. Accordingly, Abdel Razek‘s tiny book comes in three 

main chapters: 1) The Caliphate and Islam 2) Islam and Government 3) 

The Caliphate and Government throughout History. The order of the book 

can be manifested in the major arguments which the author provides in his 

book including the fact that the caliphate was never a religious institution, 

the fact that the caliphate was always protected and maintained by the 

sword, and the fact that the governments which the caliphs established after 

the death of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) were all nonreligious. The 

followings are examples that are meant to illustrate the feature of causal 

emplotment from the book:-  

Example (14): 

Source Text Translation 

اىخطؾ اىذْٝٞخ، "ٗاىخالفخ ىٞغذ فٜ شٜء ٍِ 
مال ٗال اىقؼبء ٗال غٞشَٕب ٍِ ٗظبئف اىؾنٌ 
ٍٗشامض اىذٗىخ. ٗاَّب ريل ميٖب خطؾ عٞبعٞخ 
طشفخ، ال شأُ ىيذِٝ ثٖب، فٖ٘ ىٌ ٝؼشفٖب ٗىٌ 
ْٝنشٕب، ٗال أٍش ثٖب ٗال ّٖٚ ػْٖب، ٗاَّب 
رشمٖب ىْب، ىْشعغ فٖٞب اىٚ أؽنبً اىؼقو، 

(605ٗرغبسة األٌٍ، ٗق٘اػذ اىغٞبعخ")