An-Najah National University 

Faculty of Graduate Studies     

A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis of Three English 
Translations of Surat “Yusuf”   

By 

Tasneem Naser Addeen Ashaer   

Supervisor 

Dr. Nabil Alawi      

This Thesis is Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the 
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Applied 
Linguistics and Translation,Faculty of Graduate Studies, An-
Najah National University, Nablus,Palestine.  

2013 





iii  

Dedication 

To my dearest parents, my mom and dad, who gave me the help and support I 

needed while working on my thesis. 

To my husband and two children who were so patient and tolerant all through 

the period of my study. 

To my dear brothers and sisters for their endless support all through the progress 

of this work. 

To my father and mother-in-law who followed up with my work and offered 

endless encouragement. 

To all those who cared and gave me support. 



iv  

Acknowledgement 

The first and utmost thanks are to Allah, for guiding my path all the way till the 

final step in this work. 

I thank my parents, my family and all those who encouraged me and supported 

me throughout the whole thesis. 

I am indebted to my supervisor Dr. Nabil Alawi who was my guardian, my 

supporter and my strength all the way through. I thank him for his help, his 

valuable suggestions and advice as well as his “quick reading”. He is a 

dedicated scholar and deserves all the gratitude from me. 

I greatly thank Dr. Ruqayyah Herzallah who guided my way in the study of 

language from the first day for me at University and throughout the years of my 

B.A and M.A. Her lectures and her notes and thoughts regarding my work were 

enlightening. 

Thanks to Dr. Mohammad Thawabteh who gave me beneficial notes and 

suggestions so as to improve my work. 

I would also like to thank my dear husband who was my Arabic teacher and 

supervisor while doing my analysis. His help in Arabic grammar and rhetoric 

were of great importance for making this a better work. 

Last but not least, I thank my dear father so greatly for being my guide in giving 

me help by his unlimited knowledge and guiding my steps till the end. My 

mother cannot be left out for she was my inspiration. She kept up with me step 

by step and word by word till the very end. 

Thank you all 

I will always be indebted to you all.   



v  

 
: 

A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis of Three English Translations of Surat 

“Yusuf” 

 

.

Declaration

 

The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the researcher’s 

own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere for any other degree or 

qualification.  

Student Name: ………………………………………….………….: 

Signature: ………………………………………………………………: 

Date: …………………………………….……………………………..:       



vi  

Table of contents 

No. Content Page 

 
Dedication iii 

 
Acknowledgement iv 

 
Declaration v 

 

Table of contents vi 

 

Abstract vii 

 

Chapter One 1 

1.1 Introduction 1 

1.2 Statement of the Problem 6 

1.3 Questions of the Study 7 

1.4 Definition of Terms 8 

1.5 Limitations of the Study 10 

1.6 Significance of the Study 10 

1.7 Methodology 12 

 

Chapter Two 16 

2.1 Review of Literature 16 

 

Chapter Three 33 

3.1 A Semantic Analysis and Evaluation of the Three 

Translations of Surat “Yusuf” 

33 

 

Chapter Four 62 

4.1 A Pragmatic Analysis and Evaluation of the Three 

Translations of Surat “Yusuf” 

62 

 

Chapter Five 95 

5.1 Conclusions 95 

5.2 Recommendations 98 

 

Works Cited 100 

 

Works Cited (Arabic) 106 

   



vii  

A Semantic and Pragmatic Analysis of Three English Translations of Surat 
“Yusuf” 

By 
Tasneem Naser Adeen Ashaer 

Supervisor 
Dr. Nabil Alawi 

Abstract 

The continuous growth of Islam and its wide spread throughout the world has 

called for the need to translate the Quran. The necessity for translating the 

Quran lies in the fact that the teachings of Islam are found within the verses of 

the Quran; it is the true guide for all Muslims around the world. 

A large number of translations of the Quran are found in libraries and book 

stores carried out by Muslims and non-Muslims from different tongues and 

cultures. Having a large number of translations for the same book raises the 

question of why all the translations are not the same. This is due to the highly 

elevated language of the Quran and the Arabic language used in its verses with 

its rhetorical devices. 

The dissertation tries to shed some light on how the Quran should be translated 

and what methods of translation are to be followed when dealing with its verses. 

The study is based on the comparison of three translations of the Quran 

regarding the semantic and pragmatic issues found in surat “Yusuf”. The aim is 

to discover areas in which the translators were unable to capture the intended 

meaning of a verse due to semantic or pragmatic reasons present in the verse. 

The comparison is carried out in the light of some of the most important 

exegeses of the Quran along with important books of Arabic rhetoric and 

grammar. 

The study does not aim at judging the works of the three translators; it aims at 

pinpointing cases that are problematic in Quran translation so as to produce 

translations that are more accurate and more incongruence with the established 

canon of Quranic exegeses . 



1  

Chapter One 

Introduction 

Islam is a world wide religion which was sent to all humanity. Its teachings, 

orders, prohibitions and laws are all found in its holy book, the Quran. This 

book, stands as the proof for the truthfulness of Prophet Mohammad’s message 

(peace be upon him), and was revealed to the Prophet in the Arabic language 

carrying within its verses all the rhetorical devices and features of eloquence of 

Arabic. With the rapid growth of Islam around the world, a need for the 

translation of the Quran into other languages has become a necessity and an 

important contribution to all humanity. 

Muslim scholars took two opposing stands regarding the translation of the 

Quran; some accept the idea of translating it while others refuse its translation 

totally. In the second edition of Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies 

(2009), the translatability and legitimacy of the translation of the Quran is 

discussed. For example, it mentions Imam Shatby who stated that the Quran 

cannot be translated with the view that the book has senses which are exclusive 

to the Quranic Arabic. On the other hand, the Encyclopedia (2009) states that 

Al-Azhar, the authoritative center of Islamic studies, agreed on Pickthall’s 

translating the Quran as long as his 1930 translation does not carry the title of 

“The Quran”, rather it should be a “translation or interpretation of the meanings 

of the Quran”. 

Moreover, Mahmoud (2008) gives examples from the life of the Prophet 

Mohammad (pbuh), showing that the Prophet agreed on translating some verses 

of the Quran to languages other than Arabic. He mentions the case when Ja’far 

bin Abi Talib read surat “Maryam” to the emperor of Abyssinia in the language 



2  

of the Abyssinians. Moreover, there is the case when Prophet Mohammad 

(pbuh) sent three letters to “Hiraql (the Emperor of the Roman Empire), Kisra 

(King of Persia) and Al-Muqauas (the Ruler of Copt)” (2008, p.1851). The 

Quranic verses in the letters were translated to the languages of each of the three 

rulers. 

Husain (2006) lists Muhammad Rida, Muhammad Albany and Muhammad 

Sulaiman as modern scholars who totally reject the translation of the Quran, 

while Muhammad Al-Shater, Fareed Wajdi and Mustafa Al-Maraghi are the 

advocates of the translation of the Quran. Al-Shater (1936) believes that 

translating the meanings of the Quran is a necessity, for it is Allah’s word to all 

humanity. 

It is very important to be aware of the fact that any translation, no matter how 

accurate, cannot replace the original Arabic Quranic text. So, in the five daily 

prayers, only the Arabic verses are acceptable to be read during the prayers. 

The problem of accepting the principle of the translation of the Quran or not 

from a religious point of view, which stimulated such a debate amongst the 

religious people and Muslim scholars, is not the focus of this study. Rather, and 

since we do actually have so many translations of the Quran, the interest is in 

the linguistic, rhetorical and pragmatic limitations which make translating the 

Quran quite problematic. The focus is also on points of weakness in translation 

that result in some changes in meaning and intention that may be brought into 

the original text. 

Muslims consider the Quran Allah’s miracle revealed to the Prophet 

Mohammad. Its strength lies in its eloquent and highly elevated language. It was 



3  

sent to the people of Quraish, a tribe that lived in Makkah and known for their 

excellence in Arabic literature and poetry along with all forms of rhetoric. So 

the Quran was revealed in their language and challenged them to bring one 

single verse like its verses, but they failed despite their eloquence in the Arabic 

language in its classical form. 

Abdul-Raof (2005) assures that the translation of the Quran is a very difficult 

task since the Quran is no ordinary text; it is loaded with “pragma-linguistic and 

cross-cultural limitations” (2005, p.116). These stand as obstacles in the way of 

the translator, making his/her task a difficult one. 

When translating between two languages that are different in various aspects, 

there can never be an exact translation equivalence. Meaning between languages 

may overlap but it is unlikely to be exactly the same. Differences which appear 

in the language, the culture and the pragmatics of the language cause variations 

in translation to always be present when working with different languages. 

Tzortzis (n. d.) states that many orientalists and linguists have highlighted the 

uniqueness and sensitiveness of the Quran as a text, making it a genre of literary 

beauty. The Holy Quran carries within its verses many features which are 

problematic for translators when dealing with them. These features are present 

in word order, words with wide semantic ranges, tense, gender, definiteness, 

shifts, metonymy and others. These features may not all be present in the target 

language, and as a result dealing with them becomes problematic. 

The correct understanding of the verses of the Quran and their intended 

meanings can only happen if the translator refers to the most important books of 

exegeses which discuss all that is related to the Quranic verse semantically, 



4  

pragmatically and rhetorically. This keeps the translator away as much as 

possible from committing mistakes whilst going through the translation process. 

Work on translating the Quran has been carried out by Muslims and non-

Muslims into many languages. Hosni (1990) and Nassimi (2008) talk about a 

number of English translations of the Quran. Amongst the non-Muslim 

translators they mention are Alexander Ross (1649), George Sale (1734), J.M. 

Rodwell (1861), E.M. Palmer (1880), Richard Bell (1937), Arberry (1955) and 

N.J. Dawood (1956), while Muslim translators include Pickthall (1930), 

Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1934-1937) and Al-Hilal and Khan (1977). 

The purpose of this thesis is to study the work of three translators of the Holy 

Quran and analyze their translations of surat “Yusuf” both semantically and 

pragmatically. The three translations under study are Koran by the Christian 

orientalist George Sale (1734), The Koran by the Jewish N.J. Dawood (1956) 

and The Meaning of the Holy Quran by the Muslim A.Y. Ali (1934-1937). 

Interestingly, the study has come to notice cases in which the translators failed 

to grasp the intended meaning of a word or a speech act (more discussion in 

chapter four), which leads to a lack and inaccuracy in the  translations leaving 

an effect on the readers other than the intended effect of the original text. It is 

important to make it clear that the intention of this study is not to undermine the 

importance of the works of the three translators and their efforts in the field of 

translation. The aim is not to prove their failure to translate but rather to 

pinpoint areas that are problematic for those who work in the field of Quran 

translation in particular. The idea is to give insight into what is to be looked for 

when translating the Quran as well as assuring the importance of a translation 

based on the Quran exegeses. 



5  

Surat “Yusuf” is a highly elevated surah carrying within its verses layers and 

layers of meaning depending on the story of Yusuf itself, the time when the 

story took place, the place in which it happened and on top of all the character 

of Yusuf himself. Knowledge of these aspects is a necessity for the production 

of a good and accurate translation as the researcher believes. 

To deal with these matters, the present work proceeds as follows: Chapter One 

introduces the problem of the study, its questions, its limitations, its 

significance, the methodology and definition of terms. Chapter Two is an 

account of the previous studies related to the translation of sacred texts in 

general and the translation of the Quran in particular. It indicates the importance 

of these studies in the analysis of surat “Yusuf”. Chapter Three is the semantic 

analysis of the surah. It gives cases of semantic issues present in the verses of 

surat “Yusuf”, studies their meanings according to the books of exegeses and 

books of Arabic rhetoric and grammar then carries out a comparison between 

the three translations in search of possible areas of translation failure and its 

causes. Chapter Four includes the analysis of pragmatic issues in the verses of 

the surah. The methodology is the same as that carried out in chapter Three. 

Finally, Chapter Five includes the conclusions and the recommendations made 

following the comparative and analytical study carried out on the verses of surat 

“Yusuf”.     



6  

Statement of the Problem 

Communication is the major goal that humans seek to achieve in their daily life. 

The best and most effective way of achieving a successful communication is 

through the use of language; it is the major carrier of thoughts, ideas, beliefs and 

cultural aspects. What seems strange is that this means of communication can 

function as an obstacle which prevents communication due to the 

misunderstanding of what is said; consequently, the overall goal of the 

communicative process would then be blocked. 

Complications in communication, in written language especially, arise when the 

text is not a straightforward use of language; rather by its use of rhetorical 

devices, word play, irony and other devices to convey its meaning. In such cases 

the understanding of the connotative meaning (non-literal sense of a word) of 

the text will be of great necessity along with the denotative meaning (literal 

sense of a word) for the understanding of the exact and intended meaning of the 

text. 

This connotative meaning carries within its layers more than the literal meaning 

of the words actually being used. Such a meaning is likely to be problematic and 

results in a failure as well as in a loss in translation. The Holy Quran is based on 

a rhetorical language and its wordings are pregnant with meanings. As a result, 

understanding the Quran is not an easy task, nor is its translation. A good and 

sufficient understanding of such a highly elevated text can result in a good 

translation. This requires (1) the mastering of Arabic as a language full of 

rhetorical devices, (2) understanding the culture of the language and (3) 

understanding reasons of revelation ( ) of each verse; i.e. the context 

in which the surah was revealed. 



7  

The rhetorical language used in the Quran is an obstacle for translators, mainly, 

non-Arab translators. Translating the verses literally, depending on the 

denotative meanings of words, results in a grave loss in meaning. 

This study aims at analyzing semantic and pragmatic problems as illustrated in 

the three translations of the Quran. It takes surat “Yusuf” as a case study and 

tries to tackle areas that the translators fail to deal with correctly in their 

translations of the surah. It works on revealing the necessity of understanding 

denotative and connotative meanings of a word as well as figurative language in 

achieving an intelligible translation that retains as much of source text meaning 

and effect as possible. 

Questions of the Study: 

The research aims at answering the following questions: 

1. Which method of translation is the best for translating the Quran? 

Is there only one, or do we need more than one? 

2. Do the three translations commit semantic errors in the translation of 

surat “Yusuf”? 

3. Do the three translations fail to render the pragmatics of the verses in 

surat “Yusuf”? 

4. What are the reasons of translation failures are found in the three 

translations? 

5. How do translators account for the translation of meaning and form in the 

translation of the Quran?   



8  

Definition of Terms: 

Since the study is both a semantic and pragmatic analysis, it is necessary to 

include the definitions of these two major components along with other 

definitions which come in handy for the readers. 

1. Quran exegeses: In Arabic these are known as “ ” “interpretation 

texts” and they are books that deal with the meaning of the Quran verse 

by verse and even word by word. These books introduce the story of the 

surah and the cause or reason of its revelation to the Prophet Mohammad 

(peace be upon him). Quran exegeses also deal with the meanings that 

result from the use of certain rhetorical devices giving the intended 

shades of meaning within a certain verse. The interpretation of the Quran 

is a very delicate issue which is not left for the layman to conduct. Even 

Ijtihad (the interpretation of religious texts in the absence of a clear 

exegesis) has its rules and precautions. 

2. Semantics: It is almost synonym with ‘meaning’. It is defined by Nida 

(1964) as “the relationship between signs or symbols created by human 

beings and their referents, corresponding roughly to what people usually 

think of as meaning” (p.34). Lyons (1977) defines semantics as “the 

study of meaning.”(p.1) 

Yule (2006) in The Study of Language defines semantics as “the study of 

the meaning of words, phrases and sentences. In semantic analysis, there 

is always an attempt to focus on what the words conventionally mean, 

rather than on what an individual speaker might want them to mean on a 

particular occasion” (p.100).  



9  

3. Pragmatics: this mainly deals with the speaker’s/writer’s intended 

meaning and the listener’s/reader’s interpretation of that meaning. 

Yule (1996) defines pragmatics as “meaning as communicated by a 

speaker (writer) and interpreted by a listener (reader)” (p.3). It is the 

encoding of meanings by the writer/speaker and their decoding by the 

reader/listener. Baker (1992) believes that the only meaning that can be 

judged as being true or false is the propositional meaning, i.e. the 

semantics of a word. Thus, the pragmatic meaning cannot be judged as 

true or false since it is based on the users of language. She defines 

pragmatics as “the study of language in use” (1992, p. 217). It can be 

manipulated and played with by those who use it in the way that suits 

their intentions and goals. Many definitions of pragmatics were 

introduced by scholars including Crystal (1985) who defines it in terms of 

users’ perspectives and Mey (2001) who gives an important role to 

conditions imposed by the society. 

Pragmatics deals with deixis which means: “pointing via language” 

(Yule, 1996, p. 9). It covers the meaning of reference and can be 

personal, spatial or temporal. It also deals with cooperation, implicatures 

and speech acts. 

Austin (1970) deals with three levels for a speech act briefly defined as 

follows: 

1. Locutionary act: the act of producing an utterance that is grammatically 

acceptable. 

2. Illocutionary act: it is the result of the communicative force of the 

utterance, and what it counts for. 

3. Perlocutionary act: the effect the utterance has on the receiver. 



10  

Speech acts are of different types among which are: declarations, 

representatives, expressives, directives and commissives. If the relation 

between an utterance structure and its act is direct then it is a ‘direct 

speech act’, but there are cases where the relation is indirect producing an 

‘indirect speech act’. A very clear case of indirect speech acts in English 

is: “Could you pass the salt?” (Yule, 1996, p. 56) 

4. Implicature: It is used by Grice (1975) for “what the speaker means or 

implies rather than what s/he literally says” (p. 223). To Grice, 

implicatures stand in opposition to ‘what is said’ and refer to ‘what is 

meant’. It is the meaning that results from violating one of the maxims. 

5. The Cooperative principle: Grice (1975) introduced this principle as an 

account of speech acts. This principle is based on four maxims that need 

to be observed when people use language in an implied way. These are: 

quality, quantity, relevance and manner 

Limitations of the Study 

This thesis is a comparative and analytical study of the translation of the Quran 

but is limited to three translations carried out by Ali, Dawood and Sale as 

mentioned earlier. Furthermore, it is limited to some examples taken from surat 

“Yusuf”. Additionally, the study aims at analyzing the translations of the verses 

semantically and pragmatically. Other features of the surah such as its stylistics, 

semiotics and rhyme for example are not part of this study’s purpose. 

Significance of the Study 

As believed by Muslims and by some non-Muslims, the Holy Quran is to all 

Muslims the miracle which proves the truthfulness of the Prophet Mohammad’s 



11  

message. It was sent to a nation known for their eloquence and outstanding 

works in literature and poetry. So, the language of the Quran is of a high status 

that challenges even those of great knowledge. In addition, the Quran, along 

with the Hadith of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), represent the major sources for 

Islamic teachings, commands and prohibitions. Understanding the Quran is the 

only way for having a thorough understanding of Islam as a religion. 

Consequently, any translation of this important text needs to be accurate and 

intelligible in all its aspects to give non-Arabic speakers, whether Muslims or 

non-Muslims, the opportunity to have a clear understanding of this text and the 

message it carries within its verses. 

The present study gains its significance from its attempt to pinpoint problems 

and inaccuracies of the translations of the Quran causing a great loss in its real 

meaning and message. It searches for these areas of failure and where possible, 

suggests better possibilities for them. 

This work on surat “Yusuf” is only an example that should illuminate the 

translation of Quranic texts in general. The way it deals with surat “Yusuf” can 

be applied to other surahs in the Quran. 

Moreover, the present study enriches the readers’ knowledge of Arabic. The 

analysis of the various verses in surat “Yusuf” includes the discussion of some 

important rhetorical devices. In Arabic, these devices cause utterances to shift 

from their original and straight forward meanings to secondary meanings 

depending on the context of use applying new shades of semantic or pragmatic 

meanings. This knowledge is not only necessary for Quranic studies but it is 

applicable to the study of any work on literature or poetry. 



12  

Methodology 

This present study is both descriptive and analytical. It is based on analyzing 

three translations of the Holy Quran and their translations of surat “Yusuf”. The 

analysis is a semantic-pragmatic analysis that searches for problematic areas in 

the surah. 

Al-Malik (1995), Al-Azzam (2005) and Hosni (1990) give a chronological order 

of the translations of the Quran from the time of the Greeks and up to our days. 

The works state that George Sale introduced the second English translation of 

the Quran in 1734. He was an English orientalist and a practicing solicitor. It is 

good to know that he was a member of the Society for Promoting Christian 

Knowledge. His translation became a reference for English speakers almost 

until the end of the nineteenth century. Sale’s translation carries great mistakes 

and errors within it for two reasons. First, as Hosni states (1990), his translation 

is not based on the original Arabic Quran, since he did not grasp the Arabic 

language, but on Marraci’s Latin version of the Quran produced in 1698. 

Second, Sale asserts that he did not have time to consult any public libraries nor 

any of the exegeses of the Quran when translating. Another shortcoming of 

Sale’s translation is that it deals with the text too literally (Al-Malik, 1995) and 

as will be also clear after the present study is done; it is a “sloppy” translation as 

one might discover. Nassimi (2008) considers Sale’s translation a biased work 

and anti- Islamic having unnecessary cases of omissions and mistranslations. 

N. J. Dawood is an Iraqi Arab Jew whose first translation of the Quran was in 

1956. That was one of the best-selling translations and published by Penguin 

Books. Hosni (1990) states that Dawood does not follow the original order of 

surahs in the Quran in his first translation; he produces a new order claiming 



13  

that there is no clear purpose for having the original order as it is. In his (1990) 

print, he rearranges the surahs following the Quranic set order (Nassimi, 2008). 

A grave mistake found in Dawood’s translation, is that he does not keep each 

verse as a separate entity standing by itself. While reading his translation in 

preparation for this study, it was clear that he jumped from verse 88, for 

example, to 94. All the verses between are joint together with connectors not 

found in the original text. According to Nassimi (2008), his translation is 

‘marred by serious mistakes’. 

Abdullah Yusif Ali is an Indian Muslim scholar. He states in his preface to the 

first edition of his translation of the meanings of the Quran (1975) that his 

translation aimed at translating both the meaning and the style of the Quran with 

an attention to the poetic values of the original text. He says “the rhythm, music 

and exalted tone of the original should be reflected in the English interpretation” 

(p. iv). His problem is in using words inside brackets either to give different 

possibilities or equivalents or to gloss parts of his translation. Such a method is 

not acceptable in Quran translations because in many cases what is added 

between brackets gives unnecessary information which causes the text to lose its 

rhetoric and informativity. Furthermore, there are cases in which what is 

between brackets is actually a part of the phrase or sentence and deleting it 

results in a fragment, which causes the meaning to be deficient. Nassimi (2008) 

notes that Ali’s translation is one of the most widely used English translations. 

It is the most accepted translation by Muslims because it has been approved by 

the King Fahd Complex, Medina, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

The reading of the works of Al-Malik (1995), Al-Azzam, (2005), Hosni (1990) 

and Nassimi (2008) allows us to reach the conclusion that the three translators 



14  

differ in their religious backgrounds and their understanding of the religion, 

their cultural origins and their mother tongues. Sale was an English non-Muslim 

who, according to Al-Malik (1995), did not master Arabic. Dawood was an 

Iraqi non-Muslim Arabic speaker, while Ali was an Indian Muslim but a non-

native speaker of Arabic. These facts will of course have an influence on the 

three translators and how they see and understand the Quran. 

The choice of the verses to be analyzed in this study was based on the 

discovered loss in meaning or the change in the rhetorical aspects of the verse 

which results in altering the real meaning that is known to Muslims. This is 

followed by a semantic and pragmatic discussion of the meaning of the verse 

depending on the exegeses of the Quran as they appear in Al-Zamakhshari 

(1407H), Al-Qurtuby (2008), Qutub (1980) and As-Saboony (1981) as well as 

the contemporary works of Al-Sha’rawi (n. d.), Abd-Alaziz (2000) and Nofal 

(1989). The discussion deals with all aspects of Arabic in the verse such as word 

order, foregrounding and backgrounding, secondary meanings of performatives, 

meanings of prepositions and other marked structures. In Arabic, these aspects 

give the verse it’s actual and intended meaning, thus they cause problems in 

translation, for the ill-informed. 

Along with these exegeses, important books of Arabic rhetoric and grammar are 

also referred to so as to study the purpose of the previously mentioned aspects 

of Arabic and how they cause the meaning to change in the studied text. These 

include Mughni Al-Labeeb by Al-Ansary (1985), Ilm Al-Ma’any by Ateeq 

(1970), An-Nahw Al-Wafy by Abbas (n. d.), Dalail Al-I’jaz by Al-Jarjany (1978) 

and I’rab Al-Quran by Al-Qaisy (437H). Additionally, dictionaries are used to 

grasp the exact meanings of words as well as the possible shades of meanings 



15  

they might have. These dictionaries include: the Arabic-Arabic dictionary Al-

Mu’jam Al-Waseet (1961), English-English Longman Dictionary (1987) and 

Arabic-English/ English-Arabic Al-Mawrid (1997). 

The three translations of the verse are then introduced with the abbreviations of 

“A” for Ali’s translation, “D” for Dawood’s translation, and “S” for Sale’s 

translation. Here the comparative stage along with the analysis stage are applied 

to the three translations to study the areas of loss in some aspects of meaning in 

the translation in light of what was earlier discussed regarding the meaning of 

the verse under study. 

In some cases the three translations seem to be lacking while in others one 

translation maybe considered more accurate than the others, and the reasons will 

be made clear. Where possible, a better translation is given following what the 

researcher believes, to carry the actually intended meaning of the verse and to 

be more accurate than those used by the translators. 



16  

Chapter Two 

Review of Literature 

Translation is a term with a long history of development and change, it has gone 

through a long period of time starting from the beginning of the Christian era up 

to our days. From the first day, there have always been fresh and new ideas and 

theories regarding what translation is and how it is to be carried out. 

Translation has been defined by different scholars and language experts. 

Newmark (1988) considers translation as an act of “rendering the meaning of a 

text into another language in the way that the author intended the text” (p.5). 

Likewise, Catford states that translation is “the replacement of textual material 

in one language (SL) by an equivalent textual material in another language 

(TL)” (1965, p. 20). 

Catford’s definition leads us to a highly disputable issue in translation in 

general, and in the translation of the Quran in particular, which is equivalence. 

The word ‘equivalent’ is defined as the state or condition of being equal. Hatim 

and Mason (1990) consider equivalence as the “closest possible approximation 

to ST meaning” (p. 8) 

Different classifications of equivalence have been introduced. Though each 

scholar uses his/her own terminology, yet when studying them carefully one can 

easily comprehend that they have so much in common. Catford (1965) 

introduced ‘formal’ and ‘textual’ equivalence. Nida (1964) argues for ‘dynamic 

equivalence’ defined as "the closest natural equivalent to the source language 

message” (1964, p. 166) and ‘formal equivalence’ which is “basically source-

oriented; that is, it is designed to reveal as much as possible the form and 



17  

content of the original message” (1964, p.165). According to Leonard (2003), 

formal correspondence is usually adopted in Biblical and sacred text 

translations, and is based on the idea of translating the message from the ST to 

the TT and retaining the original wording and grammatical structure as much as 

possible. Newmark (1981) prefers to use the terms ‘semantic’ instead of 

‘formal’ and communicative’ instead of ‘dynamic’. 

Venuti (1995) brought along the two translation strategies of ‘domestication’ 

and ‘foreignization’. He states that ‘domestication’ is “an ethnocentric reduction 

of the foreign text to target-language cultural values, ‘bring the author back 

home’”, while ‘foreignization’ is “an ethnodeviant pressure on those (cultural) 

values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text 

‘sending the reader abroad’” (1995, p. 20). 

Nida is an advocate of ‘domestication’ when Venuti defends ‘foreignization’. In 

Quran translation, Venuti’s ideas (1995) are more acceptable and applicable to 

the Quran being a sacred text and the word of Allah. His ideas of foreignization 

lead to the rejection of extreme methods of translation which cause the source 

culture to be lost. Such methods include transplantation which is more of 

adaptations than translations. Dickins et al (2002) define them as “the wholesale 

transplanting of the entire setting of the source text (ST), resulting in the entire 

text being rewritten in an indigenous culture setting” (p. 32). So, the ideas of 

Venuti (1995) and his call for foreignization are what we need in the translation 

of the Quran. 

Many argue that equivalence is unachievable in translation since meaning lies 

above the level of actual words and sentences. “In their role as mediators, 

translators deal with elements of meaning that can and often will lie above the 



18  

level of propositional content and beyond the level of the sentence” (Hatim and 

Mason, 1997, p. 11). Problems with finding a suitable equivalent when 

translating from one language to another are a result of factors related to the 

semantics, pragmatics, culture and stylistics of languages. Such problems are 

very thorny when translating sacred texts, especially the Quran. The problem in 

translating the Quran is actually in the language it was revealed in – Arabic. 

This language is a highly rhetorical one and the meaning of its words and 

utterances depends on the understanding of its rhetorical devices. Al-Jarjany 

(1978) gives a full account on the rhetoric of Arabic in the Quran. He discusses 

issues of foregrounding and backgrounding, omissions, word order, metonymy 

and others. All these issues, present in the Quran, have a great influence on the 

meaning of its verses and they cause the words and phrases to carry additional 

shades of meaning. At this point the problem appears for translators in finding 

the suitable equivalent. 

Baker (1994) discusses the issue of equivalence at the word level, above the 

word level, grammatical equivalence, textual equivalence and pragmatic 

equivalence. She assures that equivalence is a thorny issue to deal with in any 

translation. She gives a number of strategies to overcome the cases of non-

equivalence, yet she states that loss is inevitable. What is of importance to this 

study is her believe that change in the source text results in the loss of meaning. 

For instance, she gives paraphrase and omission as strategies when equivalence 

at the word level is not possible, but she asserts that a paraphrase “does not have 

the status of a lexical item and therefore cannot convey expressive, evocative or 

any kind of associative meaning” (1992, p. 40). In translation by omission 

Baker also believes that “there is inevitably some loss of meaning” (1992, p.41). 



19  

No person can neglect the fact that languages are different in so many aspects. 

Nida (1964) believes that behind any act of translation lies the fact that 

languages are extremely different from one another. 

According to Hongwei (1999), “language is the life-blood of culture and is the 

track along which language forms and develops” (p. 122). This makes it clear 

that culture plays a very important role in giving meaning to words and 

structures, and the variations and differences between one culture and another 

stand as an obstacle for a translator. This idea is very useful for those who work 

in the field of scripture translations. It gives them an insight on what to search 

for and what to worry about when translating. 

Mahmoud (2008) states that “translation is basically a complex interlingual 

process. It involves cultural and pragmastylistic aspects” (p.1851). Mahmoud 

also points out the direct influence that cultural features of a ST have on 

translation between Arabic and English. “Cultural values are reflected through 

the language of a particular society [they are] difficult to be rendered into 

another language, especially those related to Islamic religious norms because 

they express cultural behaviors rather than mere abstract entities” (2008, p. 

1852). Similarly, Nida (2002) points out that “differences between cultures 

cause many more severe complications for the translator than do differences in 

language” (p.130). Nida’s words reveal the fact that translation includes both 

linguistic and cultural issues which require a translator to be fully aware of the 

ST language and culture, as well as the TT language and culture. 

Abdul-Raof (2001) makes it clear that “the linguistic, syntactic, semantic and 

pragmatic differences in languages lead to cases of both non-equivalence and 

untranslatability between languages” (p. 9). This is very clear in sacred texts in 



20  

general and specially the Holy Quran, since it is loaded with cultural as well as 

rhetorical devices. An example of this is discussed by Hatim and Mason (1997) 

on reference switching in the Quran. Such a rhetorical device is absent in 

English, while in Arabic it carries a pragmatic function. Switching can include 

pronominal reference, tense, definiteness, number and gender. Hatim and 

Mason (1997) believe that this device raises the degree of informativity in the 

text. They add that the purpose of this device is used to give a “supportive 

attitude”, “establish intimacy”, “specify certain concepts”, “scold” or 

“exaggerate”; practices which all achieve pragmatic effects. This device causes 

a problem of equivalence and untranslatability since it is absent in English. 

For Muslims, the Quran is the word of Allah revealed to the Prophet 

Mohammad (pbuh) and is his undefeatable miracle that was sent to him in an 

age of excellent literature and poetry works. Arab rhetoricians believe that the 

strength of the Quran lies in its language, style and rhetorical devices which also 

add to its beauty. Abdul-Raof (2001) asserts that “the beauty of Quran-specific 

language and style surpasses man’s faculty to reproduce the Quran in 

translation” (p. 3). 

Abdul-Raof (2004) describes the language of Quranic discourse as “a rainbow 

of syntactic, semantic, rhetorical, phonetic and cultural features that are distinct 

from other types of Arabic discourse” (p. 92). The miracle of the Quran is in its 

harmony of sounds, images and feelings found in the verses. To others, the 

miracle of the Quran lies in its density of associative meanings which make it 

difficult to translate. Phillips (1997) sees the miracle of the Quran in its literary 

style, the wonders of its rhyme and the marvel of its rhythm. 



21  

Abdul-Raof (2006) discusses all the rhetorical devices of Arabic and applies 

them to examples from the Quran. The significance of this study is that it deals 

with the pragmatic functions of rhetorical devices and how they affect the 

speech acts of the language. Abdul-Raof states that “Arabic rhetoric provides a 

pragmatic account of linguistic derivation, linguistic structuring and 

conversational implicature” (2006, xiii). Abdul-Raof further says that rhetoric is 

the “flesh and blood of Arabic” (2006, p.1) and focuses on speech acts that are 

‘pregnant’ with meanings and communicative purposes. He also gives examples 

to show how rhetoric is interested in implicatures. Arabic Rhetoric discusses 

issues of word order, figures of speech, and embellishments from a pragmatic 

point of view and analyzes examples from the Quran to make clear the 

importance of such rhetorical devices in producing the meaning of such an 

elaborated text. 

A number of issues studied in Arabic Rhetoric are necessary and essential to the 

present work in the analysis part. Such issues include the pragmatic roles of 

definiteness, indefiniteness, thematic structures, negation, affirmation particles, 

ellipses, foregrounding, backgrounding and simile. The pragmatic purposes that 

Abdul-Raof discusses are applicable in the analysis of surat “Yusuf” when 

comparing the three translations. 

The question that arises here is: How should the Quran be translated? Are we to 

use a foreignizing approach or a domesticating one? Should we depend on 

semantic or communicative methods of translation? And are we to retain the 

rhetorical devices of the Quran or leave them out? 

In his work, Mahmoud (2008) insists on the importance of the linguistic rules, 

the stylistic and cultural norms and speech act conventions in achieving 



22  

effective translations. The linguistic features that are specific to the Quran and 

that differ from ordinary uses of Arabic, pose a great challenge for translators, 

especially that Arabic and English are two different languages both culturally 

and linguistically. Mahmoud (2008) states that the available translations of the 

Quran are either semantic or communicative ones. He believes that the literal 

translations neglect the implicit meaning of the ST, while communicative 

translations cause linguistic values to be lost.“The word order, the selection of 

lexical items and syntactic structures in the Quranic text all dictate semantic 

subtleties whose delicate underlying meaning can be quite difficult to tackle 

through translation” (Mahmoud, 2008, p. 1867). The two types of translation 

mentioned above are discussed by Newmark (1984). Briefly, ‘semantic 

translation’ is appropriate for all readers “all who have ears to hear” (1984, 

p.48). It is based on respecting the content and the semantic and syntactic 

structure of the ST. It is considered a resort when the language of the ST is as 

important as the message, which is the case of the Quran. ‘Communicative 

translation’ renders force rather than content; the translator has the right to 

correct the logic of the ST, change structure, omit repetitions, metaphors and 

solve ambiguities. Newmark recommends semantic translation for religious 

texts. 

In the translation of the Bible, Nida (1964) calls for the domestication of the ST 

when translated. He calls for the focus on communicating the meaning of the ST 

when translating regardless of the style. To him “correspondence in meaning 

must have priority over correspondence in style […] sacrifice of meaning for 

the sake of reproducing the style may produce only an impression and fail to 

communicate the message” (2002, p. 134). This is his ‘dynamic equivalence’. It 



23  

may be that the translator has the license to domesticate the translation of the 

Bible because the Bible is written by men, unlike the Quran which is the word 

of Allah directly revealed to his Prophet. 

Some scholars reject Nida’s extreme position and accuse him of cutting the 

close relation between meaning and style, which results in a considerable 

amount of loss. Among those are Kirk (2005) and Marlowe (2002). Yet, despite 

favoring ‘dynamic equivalence’, Nida asserts that translation is a continuum 

with ‘literal translation’ on one end and ‘dynamic equivalence’ on the other. 

Literal translation can result in strangeness while dynamic translation can be 

unfaithful. 

Rhodes (2009) follows the history of the Bible translation starting with the 3rd 

century B.C. Rhodes states that “an accurate translation is one that 

communicates to today’s readers the same meaning that the original author’s 

text conveyed to his original readers. Most Bible scholars say Bible translations 

should aim to remain faithful to the original meaning of the text…” (2009, p. 

17). The writer discusses the reasons causing biblical translation to be a difficult 

job: no one-to-one-parallel between words of different languages, the historical 

barrier between us today and the time when it was first written, variation among 

languages in their use of idioms or figures of speech, the presence of technical 

words such as justification, sanctification, and propitiation, as well as acrostics 

and word play. Rhodes talks about the importance of dealing with words in their 

context to grasp their exact and intended meanings. 

After giving an account on formal and dynamic equivalence, it is clear that 

Rhodes takes an opposing position from that of Nida and his dynamic 

equivalence. Rhodes believes that a translator “is obliged to convey in clear and 



24  

readable form, not only the meanings of individual words or phrases but 

something also of the structure, rhythm and emotive elements of the original 

text” (2009, p. 25). 

It can be noticed when having a look at Abdul-Raof’s work (2006) on the 

importance of rhetorical devices in achieving meaning and the ideas of Rhodes 

(2009) on Bible translation, since it is a sacred text, that the dynamic 

equivalence is not a good method when translating the Holy Quran. 

Al-Salem (2008) insists on the necessity of maintaining the style of the Holy 

Quran and sees no need for changing it or omitting it. She states that reading the 

Quran “is like reading an instruction manual which describes how to assemble 

then operate a machine. Many people do not enjoy reading manuals because 

they have to make an effort trying to identify the parts […] yet, they do read 

them carefully because they need to. Manuals cannot be made much simpler 

because they talk about concepts the recipient is not familiar with” (p. 78). Yet, 

Muslims find joy and pleasure in reciting the verses of the Quran. 

The coming part introduces a number of studies related to the Quran and its 

translations in particular with a short description of these studies and their 

importance to the present research. 

Abdul-Raouf (2004) studies the Quranic discourse, its linguistic idiosyncrasies 

and prototypical features that have challenged the limits of translatability. He 

states that the translation of the Quran was at first rejected by many Muslim 

scholars, but others accepted the idea as long as the translations are based on the 

exegetical explanations of the Quran. Abdul-Raof considers many features of 

the Quran as alien to the linguistic norms of other languages such as the shifts. 



25  

The writer discuses a number of lexical and semantic voids found in different 

translations of the Quran. These are cases of gaps in meaning caused by a word 

having one shade of meaning in the source language which is absent in the 

target language. He states that “some Quranic lexical items are pregnant with 

Quran-specific emotive overtones, which in turn create lexical voids. The 

lexical compression of Quranic expressions can only be tackled through 

componential analysis […] semantic decomposition of words” (2004, p. 93). 

Abdul-Raof considers some cases where transliteration of some Quranic 

expressions is needed to avoid the loss of their sensitive overtones. What causes 

the problem, according to Abdul-Raof, is Arabic having morphological 

mechanisms that allow it to form different words from the same root, as well as 

being in some cases semantically more specific than English and in others less 

specific. He states the example of the English words ‘shelling’ and 

‘bombardment’ which in Arabic are only one – ‘ ’. 

He also states “ ” (descended) and “ ” (revealed) as an additional example 

of semantic voids from the Quran. Abdul-Raof shows that the first signifies the 

act of the Quran revelation that lasted 23 years, while the second means 

‘revealing at once’. In the translations he studies, the problem appears when the 

translators use the term “sent down” for both. 

Abdul-Raouf introduces other cases of voids in the translation of the Quran. He 

adds structural/stylistic voids related to the patterns of a language (nouns, verbs, 

adjectives, particles…). He assures that a language changes the fixed order of 

words to produce a style that is effective and sublime. These styles are 

semantically distinct from normal word order. He gives an example of 

foregrounding sentences (clefting). He adds that “syntax and style stand 



26  

shoulder-to-shoulder to produce the desired communicative goal whose 

meaning would not have been achieved via an ordinary simple syntactic 

pattern” (2004, p. 97). This idea of word order and its importance has been alive 

since the days of St. Jerome who believes that word order has a mystery in it. 

After the voids, the writer moves on to talk about some rhetorical devices of the 

Arabic syntactic structuresin the Quran, their definitions and purposes of usage. 

This study calls for the maintenance of any marked structures such as the 

change in the unmarked word order of Arabic since everything there in the text 

fulfills a certain purpose that results in producing the intended meaning. For 

example having the prepositional phrase infront of the verb is a case of a 

marked structure. 

“Pragmalinguistic forms in cross-cultural communication” is an article by 

Hussein Abdul-Raof (2006) which deals with Quran translations too. The writer 

in this article assures that Muslim scholars reject cultural transplantation in the 

Quran and go with Venuti’s idea that domestication causes loss in both the text 

and its culture. Abdul-Raof asserts the importance of depending on Quran 

exegeses in any attempt to understand or translate the Quran. “Translating the 

Quranic text is no ordinary task due to the fact that the translation process is 

fraught with pragmalinguistic and cross-cultural limitations” (2006, p.116). This 

work includes a discussion of cross-cultural problems which are manifested in 

pragmalinguistic aspects. These problems include grammatical shifts, category 

shifts (intra-system shifts, class shifts, structure shifts, and unit shifts), and 

stylistic shifts (shift in morphological forms, function words and affirmation 

tools). The way he analyzes the studied examples and the suggestions he gives 

for better translations are of great help in the present research on surat “Yusuf”. 



27  

Mahmoud (2008) introduced his study of surat “An-Nas” in which he deals 

with four translations of the surah. Mahmoud makes it clear that it is important 

to take both target culture and source culture into account. He uses the example 

of the word “ ” to exemplify this idea. It is translated in three translations 

he cited as “breast” except for Ali (1989) who used the term “heart”. This 

example shows the loss of cultural aspects of the text when the translator 

misinterprets the connotative meaning of a word since the word “ ” in 

Arabic is used to talk about the heart; not only the breast. 

Mahmoud (2008) assures that maintaining invariability of the SL content when 

translating requires transferring what is implicit in the ST to an explicit meaning 

in the TT. He asserts that verses in the Quran carry out actions to achieve 

communicative purposes not clear in the lexical items of the verse. 

For Mahmoud “pragmatic coherence is a yardstick to judge a translation as 

good or bad” (2008, p. 1862). He studies the various speech acts in surat “An-

Nas” and the illocutionary forces it includes. He shows how the translators lost 

such a force when translating the surah. 

Moreover, Mahmoud (2008) talks about the stylistic dimension in surat “An-

Nas”. He states that two utterances may include the same information yet have 

different meanings due to their variation in style. He is a proponent of form as it 

has an important role in conveying impressions, feelings, attitudes and emotions 

along with meaning. Various stylistic values that influence the understanding of 

surat “An-Nas” are introduced by Mahmoud in his study. He talks about 

annexation, repetition and antithesis (contrasting ideas being juxtaposed). 

Mahmoud introduces the term ‘target accommodation’ of Kievit (1990) which 



28  

is based on the adaptation of the translation towards the target readership, which 

is not a suitable method for translating the Holy Quran. 

The importance of this study for the present work is that it calls for retaining the 

Arabic stylistic and aesthetic qualities in the TT since they are very conducive 

to the meaning of the text. 

Al-Salem (2008) in her comparative study of five translations of the Quran 

regarding metonymy assures that the higher the text’s quality is, the more 

difficult it is to be translated. “The translator not only has to render the meaning 

of text, but also has to maintain its style and spirit” (2008, p. 2). 

Al-Salem introduces the definition of metonymy along with its various types 

with examples from the Quran. Metonymy is a figure of speech in which one 

word is used to stand for another which is closely associated to it. Al-Salem 

goes through a number of studies related to how to translate metonymy 

including Newmark (1984), Larson (1998), Gutt (1992) and De Beaugrande 

(1978). She then introduces the linguistic problems encountered by translators 

as given by Abdullah (1992) such as different semantic ranges, euphemisms, 

different classifications, different tropical expressions and the issue of 

equivalence. 

Al-Salem studies 30 cases of metonymy in surat “Al-Baqara” and some other 

surahs showing how they were rendered in the translations under study. She 

gives an example of a part-for-whole metonymy from surat “Al-Baqara”. It 

appears in the word “ ” carrying the meaning of ‘submit’ and ‘pray’ as in 

At-Tabary (2001) and As-Saboony (1981) respectively. The term is mis-

translated when changed to “bow your heads” which is totally wrong and carries 



29  

different cultural features in the TL. Al-Salem calls for maintaining the meaning 

and effect of metonymy through literal translation whenever possible. If literal 

translation fails, the word should be reduced to its intended meaning, resulting 

in some loss of meaning. 

Her idea of translating a sacred text as being like a manual of instructions shows 

that she is for the approach that calls for preserving Quranic form and style as 

well as foreignization in translation. 

Amir Al-Azab and Othman Al-Misned (2012) believe that pragmatic loss in 

Quran translation causes the pleasure of the text to fade away. In the study, they 

introduce a number of cases of pragmatic losses that occur when the Quran is 

translated and they show that the translations of the Quran cause a loss in 

meaning due to the loss of these features. These include loss of genre, texture, 

textual meaning, referential versatility, culture specific terms, prevalence, word 

order, syntactic conflict, exaggerated forms, ellipses, gender, grammatical 

category and tense. The examples they apply to these cases all reveal the same 

idea of the previous studies which assure the importance of maintaining the 

structure, style and rhetoric of the Quran. 

Abbas Rasekh et al. (2012), deal with homonymy as a case of lexical ambiguity. 

They believe that an important problematic issue which a translator faces while 

doing his/her work is the understanding of the intended meaning of ambiguous 

words which have two or more pragmatic interpretations and only one is used. 

The writers define the term ‘homonymy’ and mention the cases of ambiguity 

introduced by Newmark (1988). They also add the seven definitions of “ ” as 

given by Teflisi (1960), and then compare them with 16 translations of the 



30  

Quran. The writers assure that the job of the translator is to reproduce and retain 

the intended ambiguity in the translated text. 

Abu-Mahfouz (2011) studies the way Ali translates nouns in the Quran. Abu-

Mahfouz cites Arberry (1955) who confirms that any translation of the Quran is 

“a poor copy of the glittering splendor of the original” (p. 24). Abu-Mahfouz 

discusses the semantic problems in Ali’s translation of the Quran. These 

problems include: 

1. Using a hyponym as an equivalent to a superordinate. For example, the 

word “ ” is translated as “heifer” which is actually a particular cow; 

one which has not given birth to a calf yet. 

2. Using a superordinate as an equivalent to a hyponym. Ali translates the 

word “ ” as “places of worship”. 

3. Translation by transliteration when there is an equivalent. “ ” and 

“ ” are translated as “zanjabil” and “ummat” respectively. 

4. Inconsistency and translating the same Arabic word occurring in different 

verses to different English words. In surat “Yusuf” he translates “ ” as 

“Aziz” and “exalted one”. 

The way the writer deals with such semantic failures is insightful and 

beneficial to this present research and is a guide for the analysis of the three 

translations since it shows what to search for in a semantic analysis. 

In 1995, Al-Malik carried out a study on the secondary meanings of 

performative utterances. He worked on five translations of the Quran. The 

writer mentions that a performative utterance becomes problematic if it is not 

used to indicate its basic meaning; it may have a secondary meaning. In his 



31  

work, Al-Malik discusses the performative utterances in both Arabic and 

English in general. He deals with imperatives, negative imperatives, 

interrogatives, vocatives and wish from two aspects: direct and basic meaning; 

then secondary meanings. 

In his analysis of the five translations, he gives Quranic examples of 

performatives being used to give the secondary meaning and not the basic 

meaning depending on what Quran exegeses say. Then he shows how the 

translators’ failure to notice such secondary uses results in the loss of meaning. 

To conclude, it is clear that translation in general is a very complicated task 

since it is not restricted to the individual lexical item. This task gains more 

difficulty and becomes a burden for the translator when s/he works with sacred 

and religious texts. This study aims at and deals with the highest and most 

transcendental text, the Quran. It is important to affirm the idea that the Quran is 

a divine text and as a result, its sounds, words and style are, too. For many 

orientalists and linguists, the Quran is a unique and sensitive text with great 

beauty. Any change in the linguistic environment of the Quran results in some 

loss in meaning which can be drastic in many cases. Achieving a perfect 

translation of the Quran, therefore, remains an unattained task. 

Finding areas of failure committed by the three translators due to semantic and 

pragmatic causes is achieved through a comparative study between the three 

translations. The analysis is new because it is based on both old exegeses such 

as Al-Zamakhshari, Al-Qurtubi, Qutub and As-Saboony as well as the 

contemporary work of Asha’arawi, Abd-Alaziz and Nofal. Additionally, it 

studies surat “Yusuf” which has not been tackled by other researchers regarding 

the accuracy of its translation as the previously mentioned ones. 



32  

Hopefully, the study will help those who work in the field of Quran translations 

to be aware of some important aspects of surat “Yusuf” which are essential for 

the understanding and the translation of the surah more accurately and 

effectively.       



33  

Chapter Three 

A Semantic Analysis and Evaluation of the Three Translations of 

Surat “Yusuf” 

This chapter is based on analyzing the verses which include semantic problems 

and failures found in the work of the three translators Ali, Dawood and Sale. 

The analysis is not based on the judgment of the researcher; rather it depends on 

exegeses of the Quran known as the books of Tafseer (explanations and 

interpretations). Besides the exegeses and their commentaries, Arabic and 

English dictionaries are also used to point out the various meanings that words 

may carry and as a result lead to problems in translation along with Arabic 

books on syntax and rhetoric. 

The analysis of the verses starts with the verse in Arabic, followed by the 

opinions stated in the exegeses, Arabic books and dictionaries. This analysis 

aims at reaching the exact intended meaning of a word as it appears in the verse. 

It makes the meaning of the word clear among the many shades of meaning it 

may have. Following this is a representation of the translations of Ali (A), 

Dawood (D) and Sale (S). At this point, comes the step of contrast between the 

three translations and a study of their acceptability. Here the search for 

adequacy, correctness and acceptability takes place to find the best translation. 

Before dealing with the verses of surat “Yusuf”, we digress a little to point out a 

very clear error in translation committed by Sale in the phrase which every 

surah in the Quran starts with, namely , which is known as al-

basmallah and it means that what a Muslim does is always in the name of Allah 

who is gracious and merciful. The three translators give it the following 

translations: 

A) “In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful.” 

D) “In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful.” 



34  

S) “In the name of the most merciful God.” 

It is clear from the Arabic phrase that two characteristics are attributed to Allah: 

merciful and gracious. Dawood loses the case of exaggeration “ ” found in 

“ ” and “ ” by changing the form into mere adjectives only; they are 

properties which are loaded with meaning. Sale’s translation is rejected for two 

reasons. First, he only gives one adjective and drops the other. Second, and as 

Hosni (1990, p. 97) discusses, Sale’s use of the superlative form “the most” 

connotes that other gods exist, and this God is being compared to them. 

Now we move to deal with the semantic issues found in the verses of surat 

“Yusuf”, their analysis and discussion. 

Verse 1: 

" " 

Some try to give the meaning of such letters found at the beginning of a number 

of suras in the Quran. What is of concern to this study is how they are to be 

translated. Asha’arawi (n. d.) says that these letters must be read according to 

the way they are actually said in speech, i.e. according to the phonological 

system of the language. He states an example to prove his point of view from 

surat “Al-Baqara” and surat “Al-Sharh”. Both start with “ ” but the two are 

different. In “Al-Sharh” it gives the meaning of “haven’t we”, but in “Al-

Baqara”, its meaning is not known and is not of the concern of this study. They 

are taken here as a combination of three letters Alif, Lam, Meem. 

A) And D) “Alif, Lam, Ra” 

S) “A. L. R” 

According to Asha’arawi, the problem is clear in Sale’s translation of these 

three letters. It is something un-debatable that any reader of Sale’s translation is 

to read the letters as they are found and pronounced in the English language, 



35  

and this is wrong. They should be read as they are in the Arabic phonological 

system and rendered as the names of the letters but this is not possible in Sale’s 

translation. 

In the same verse, we continue to talk about “ ”. Nofal (1989) 

and Asha’arawi (n. d,) give “ ” the meaning of “what makes issues and 

things clear”. 

A) and S) “… the Perspicuous Book” 

D) “… the Glorious Book” 

Longman dictionary (1987) and Al-Mawrid (1997) define “perspicuous” as 

clear, easy, showing clever judgment and understanding. While “glorious” is 

given the meanings of having fame, honor, beauty and splendor. This indicates 

that Dawood’s use of “glorious” does not give the meaning of the verse. What 

Sale and Ali did is closer to the intended meaning 

Verse 3: 

" " 

The item “ ” in Al-Waseet (1972) is derived from the root “ ” which can 

stand for two meanings: “ ” referring to what is beautiful, and “ ” 

meaning “the best”. Nofal (1989) states that in this verse “ ” is used to 

describe surat “Yusuf” as being the best of stories in its narration, choices, 

style, judgment and proof. Abd-Alaziz (2000) adds that it is “ ” because the 

story of “Yusuf” is written in the best of forms and the greatest of excellence. 

A) “We do relate unto thee the most beautiful of stories.” 

D) “We will recount to you the best of narratives.” 

S) “We relate unto thee a most excellent history.” 



36  

It seems that Ali, and by the use of “the most beautiful” goes to the first 

meaning given by the word “ ” and thus he falls into the trap of Arabic 

semantics where one word can have many shades of meaning. “The best” and 

“most excellent” do actually give the intended meaning of “ ” in this verse. 

Verse 4: 

" " 

In this verse, we will discuss the issue of “ ”. Nofal (1989) supplies his 

readers with a number of opinions regarding this word. These include Sebawaih, 

Makhloof and Al-Alamy who all say that the “ ” in this word replaces the 

possessive pronoun “my” which is “ ” in Arabic. They also assure that only one 

of them can be used but including both is rejected in Arabic. 

A) “Behold, Joseph said to his father: ‘O my father…’” 

D) “Joseph said to his father: ‘Father…’” 

S) “When Joseph said unto his father, O my father…” 

It can be noted that the deleted “ ” in the verse which was replaced by “ ” is 

there in Ali’s and Sale’s translations. Following the opinions of Arabic 

rhetoricians, the two seem to have failed to capture the rhetoric of the verse. 

Their translations break the rules of Arabic vocative forms which are carried out 

either by the “ ” or by the “ ”. 

Verse 9: 

" " 

Al-Waseet (1972) gives “ ” the meaning of “ ” meaning “empty from 

what it contains”. The exegeses all give it a secondary meaning in this verse 

“ ” which is “solely” according to Al-Mawrid (1997). 



37  

A) “…that so the favor of your father may be given to you alone.” 

D) “…so that we may have no rivals in our father’s love.” 

S) “…and the face of your father shall be cleared towards you.” 

Both Ali and Dawood seem to have understood the secondary shade of meaning 

of “ ” in the verse so they use “alone” and “no rivals” respectively. On the 

contrary, Sale goes for the main meaning of the word as to be empty and so he 

uses “cleared”. He uses a literal translation for this part of the verse which 

carries a connotative meaning which he ignores. The result is an 

incomprehensible phrase. 

Verse 10: 

" " 

In the verse, the word which is problematic is “ ”. Al-Qurtuby (2008) gives 

it the meaning of “finding something by accident”. Abd-Alaziz (2000) defines it 

as “to take”. 

A) “… he will be picked up by some caravan of travelers.” 

D) “… some caravan will take him up” 

S) “…and some travelers will take him up” 

The translators use “pick up” and “take up”. Longman Dictionary (1987) gives 

the following definitions: 

Pick up: “to take hold of (esp. something small or light) and lift it up from a 

surface.” 

Take up: “to begin to spend time; to ask about or take further action; to fill or 

use (space or time); to accept the offer of and to continue.” 



38  

If a componential analysis is carried out, which is a description of the meanings 

of a word depending on semantic fields so as to analyse the meaning of the 

word, it will be clear that “take up” cannot be used to mean “ ”, while “pick 

up”, which is used by Ali, is more acceptable. 

Verse 12: 

" " 

Al-Qurtuby (2008) and Asha’arawi (n. d.) show the difference between two 

verbs in Arabic – “ ” and “ ”. They say that the former includes playing 

games that are accepted by religion and help the human strength to grow such as 

horse riding and swordplay. The latter refers to games that waste time and have 

negative results on health and worship. 

A) “… to enjoy himself and play” 

D) “…that he may play and enjoy himself” 

S) “…that he may divert himself and sport” 

A problem arises in this verse from the fact that these two verbs with their 

different shades of meaning in Arabic are not found in English; for English it is 

all “play” whether the activities are positive or negative. Therefore Ali and 

Dawood’s use of “play” causes a loss in meaning according to the books of 

exegeses. Sale’s translation and the use of “sport” is to some extent better, since 

the word “sport” is usually used to carry positive connotations. 

Verse 17: 

"

"

 



39  

The difficulty in this verse appears in the use of “ ”. Al-Qaisy (437 H) takes the 

ideas of Al-Mubarid who gives “ ” in this verse the meaning of “ ” which is 

“if”. Abd-Alaziz (2000) also gives it the same meaning. The brothers of 

“Yusuf” tell their father that he will not believe them even if they tell the truth 

because he does not see them as innocent. Nofal (1989) gives it the function of 

an adverb ( ) which indicates the impossibility of the happening of what 

follows. 

A) “…but thou wilt never believe us even though we tell the truth.” 

D) “…but will not believe us, though we speak the truth.” 

S) “… but thou wilt not believe us, although we speak the truth.” 

What we find in the three translations is a totally different meaning from what is 

actually there in the verse. The use of “though” and “although” give assurance 

and the feeling that the brothers are telling the truth, but this is not what we find 

in the exegeses. What the verse means is that they are not telling the truth and 

even if they tell the truth he will not believe them. 

Verse 20: 

" " 

This verse is loaded with meaning. First we have “ ” which, according to 

Asha’arawi (n. d.) and Al-Qurtuby (2008), carries more than one meaning. It 

means that the price of Yusuf was trivial, low and less than his actual value. 

Also, it carries the meaning of “ ” i.e. banned and prohibited, since Yusuf 

was a free boy, not a slave. Al-Salem (2008) takes the opinions of Abdullah 

(1992) regarding problematic areas in Quran translation. One of them is clear in 

our example of “ ” where words seem semantically equivalent, but in fact 

one has a wider semantic range than the other. 

A) “The (Brethren) sold him for a miserable price…” 



40  

D) “They sold him for a trifling price…” 

S) “And they sold him for a mean price…” 

Only one shade of meaning is observed in the three translations, which is 

“trivial” and “low”, while the other shade is lost. Here the translators must add 

both meanings indicated by the target text word to have a translation that covers 

all the shades of meaning. The second shade may be “illicit” or “unlawful”. 

Another issue found in this verse is the word “ ”. In Al-Waseet (1972) 

“ ” is given the meaning of “pieces of silver”. “ ” means that the pieces 

were counted. Al-Qurtuby (2008) and Nofal (1989) say that in the time of the 

story people used to sell and buy goods by weighing them. If the goods or the 

pieces of silver were few, they would only count them. So the use of “ ” 

carries within it an economical fact about a certain history and how people used 

to deal with each other in their commerce. The use of “ ” shows how mean 

the price was and as a result how low the value of the merchandise was too. In 

this case, it was Yusuf whose price and value was belittled. 

A) “…for a few dirhams counted out.” 

D) “…for a few pieces of silver.” 

S) “…for a few pence.” 

Ali is the only one to give the word “ ” in his translation, which means that 

Dawood and Sale cause some loss in meaning once dropping it out. This part of 

the verse is essential to the whole meaning intended by the verse so as to show 

the low value the brothers gave to Yusuf. They underestimated his importance 

and did not know how great he will be in the future. 

As for “ ”, Ali prefers to transliterate it and this can be acceptable following 

Newmark (1988) who says that material words related to a certain culture and 

represent a national aspect can be transliterated as names of dishes and clothes. 

Dawood chooses to give the meaning of the word as “silver pieces” and this can 



41  

also be accepted. Sale’s translation is misleading since he uses “pence” which 

has cultural connotations that differ from the culture being described in the 

verse and the whole surah. Longman Dictionary (1987) defines it as the plural 

of “penny” which is a sum of money found in Britain since 1971 and equals one 

hundredth of a pound. What Sale actually does is ‘domestication’ which is 

rejected in the translation of the Quran. 

Verse 21: 

"

"

The verse describes the man who bought Yusuf as “ ”, i.e. “from Egypt” 

and does not say “the Egyptian”. It is known that “Egyptian” connotes that the 

person is originally from Egypt and it is his/her homeland. If an Egyptian went 

to live in America for example, s/he would still carry the Egyptian nationality. 

Asha’arawi (n. d.) makes the importance of not using the nationality in this 

situation clear for the readers later on in verse {43}. It is known that the rulers 

of Egypt were known as “Pharos” and they were Egyptians. But the 

Encyclopedia Britanica states that a group of mixed Semitic-Asiatics known as 

Hyksos immigrated into Egypt’s delta region and gradually settled there during 

the 18th century BC. The word Hyksos was an Egyptian term for “rulers of 

foreign lands”. The importance of this analysis to the study of surat “Yusuf” is 

that the people at the time of Yusuf were not Egyptians thus the Quran does not 

use “Egyptian” or “Pharos” in the surah. 

A) “The man in Egypt, who bought him…” 

D) “The Egyptian who bought him…” 



42  

S) “And the Egyptian who bought him…” 

Dawood and Sale’s use of “Egyptian” is problematic following Asha’arawi and 

causes a problem regarding the history of Egypt. The simple change in the 

structure of the verse from a prepositional phrase to an adjective causes a 

change and a disguise to the historical events in Egypt. Ali avoids such an error 

by using “in Egypt”; thus his translation is more accurate. 

Verse 23: 

"

"

The verse talks about the wife of the man who bought Yusuf. She fell in his love 

and tried to seduce him. It is clear that the verse uses “ ” which can 

be taken as a form of euphemism including no explicitness in meaning. 

A) “But she in whose house he was, sought to seduce him from his (true) 

self…” 

D) “His master’s wife attempted to seduce him…” 

S) “And she, in whose house he was, desired him to lie with her…” 

Al-Salem (2008) discusses the issue of translating euphemisms with 

euphemisms having some departure from the original meaning. Ali and Dawood 

do this by the use of “seduce” which carries a hidden meaning of sexual 

intercourse. Sale changes the euphemism into an explicit form using “lie with”. 

Longman Dictionary (1987) defines “seduce” as “old use or bibl to have sex 

with”. Perhaps it would be better to avoid such a form and keep the euphemism. 

Verse 25: 



43  

"

"

In the first part of this verse we deal with an important grammatical aspect of 

Arabic not found in English. In Arabic duality is expressed by dual morphemes 

whereas in English it is expressed by using items like “two”. Baker (1992) 

discusses the feature of Arabic in showing a distinction between singular, dual 

and plural forms. The absence of the dual form in Modern English causes a 

problem in translation. In the verse the “ ” /aa/ in “ ” and “ ” is a long 

vowel used to indicate duality, referring to “Yusuf” and the wife. 

A) “So they both raced… they both found…” 

D) “They both rushed… they met…” 

S) “And they ran… and they met…” 

Ali is the only one found to have kept the duality in both cases. Dawood keeps it 

in the first but drops it in the second. Sale gives no attention to duality at all; he 

uses the English plural only which causes some loss in meaning. It is necessary 

to maintain both cases of duality with the use of “the two” or “both” so as to 

give an exact translation. 

""

The second part of the verse includes the word “ ”, which, in Al-Waseet 

(1972), is used for anything that gets a person down and for everything hideous. 

In this verse, the word was not used in such a sense; it actually connotes the 

meaning of adultery. 

A) “What is the (fitting) punishment for one who formed an evil design …” 

D) “Shall not the man who wished to violate your wife …” 



44  

S) “What shall be the reward of him who seeketh to commit evil…” 

“Violate” and “evil” used by the translators for “ ” cover one shade of 

meaning, while they all lose the second which is the connotative part of the 

word as used in this context. It is important to give the intended meaning of 

“adultery” found in the verse since not all evil and bad doings deserve 

punishment like adultery. 

Verse 28: 

""

An aspect of Arabic found in this verse is having different pronouns and devices 

to show gender. In the verse, the use of “ ” can only carry the meaning of 

women, for it includes the feminine plural suffix “ ”. Such a distinction is not 

found in English, thus a translator will need to add items so as to give the 

intended meaning. 

A) “It is a snare of you women” 

D) “This is but one of your tricks” 

S) “This is a cunning contrivance of your sex.” 

It is clear that Ali overcomes the gap between English and Arabic and adds the 

word “women”. Dawood’s use of “your tricks” and Sales use of “your sex” are 

problematic and can cause a misinterpreting of who is addressed here, the wife 

or Yusuf. 

Verse 30: 

"

"



45  

The word “ ” is worthy of research in this verse. The surah tells us that 

when Yusuf was in Egypt there was a king and another ruler (his deputy) called 

“Aziz”. The term is used to refer to a political rank in the Egyptian society in 

the time of Yusuf. The “Aziz” can be considered the person responsible of the 

treasury and the goods of the country because later on in the surah, “Yusuf” 

becomes the “Aziz” after being appointed such a job by the king. It should be 

transliterated like any other word from the same category like “Pharos”, and 

“Cesar”. This point is also found in verse {51}, {78} and {88} 

A) “The wife of the (great) Aziz…” 

D) “The Princes wife…” 

S) “The nobleman’s wife…” 

The translations of Dawood and Sale are improper for using “prince” and 

“nobleman” as equivalents for “ ”. “Prince” is defined in Longman 

Dictionary (1987) as “a son or other near male relation of a king or queen.” 

“Nobleman” is defined as “a member of the nobility” and the nobility are people 

of the highest social class in a society. “Aziz” in Egypt is neither a prince nor a 

nobleman. The word actually means “the dignified”, but was a kingship term 

during the time of Yusuf. 

Verse 31: 

"

The word “ ” is defined as: “cunning”, “craftiness”, “slyness”, “wiliness”, 

“deception” and “deceit” (Al-Mawrid, 2007). So it is possible to translate the 

word with a target text word from the same category. If we are to give 

preference to some of these words, the choice will be “wiliness” or “deception”. 

The reason for such a choice is that the other words have both positive and 



46  

negative meanings, as found in Al-Mawrid (2007), while “wiliness” and 

“deception” are only given the negative meanings of “ ” (cheating) and 

“ ” (deceit). 

The second lexical item is “ ” which can mean different things depending 

on its context of use. Exegeses show that the verb here was not used in the sense 

of “sent” but rather it was used to mean “invited”. The wife invited the women 

of the city to a banquet to end their gossip. 

Thirdly is “ ”. Asha’arawi (n. d.) and Abd-Alaziz (2000) state that the 

actual intention for it being used by the women is to assure their awareness that 

“Yusuf” is innocent of the accusations held against him by the wife. In Al-

Mawrid (1997), “ ” is defined as “God forbid”, i.e. God forbid it that 

“Yusuf” were to carry out such a sin. 

A) “When she heard of their malicious talk, she sent for them… they said: 

‘Allah preserve us!’” 

D) “When she heard of their intrigues, she invited them… ‘God preserve 

us!’” 

S) “When she heard of their subtle behavior, she sent unto them… ‘O God!’” 

Ali and Sale use the form of an adjective and noun for “ ”. Such a shift in 

category can be used to bridge the gap between the source language and target 

language when an equivalent of a certain word from the same category does not 

exist, but in this verse it is not needed. Dawood’s “intrigues” or any of the 

words given by Al-Mawrid (1997) are more acceptable. 

As for “ ”, it is clear that Dawood understands its meaning in this context. 

“Sent for” used by Ali does not give the meaning found in the exegeses. 

Longman Dictionary (1987) offers the definition of “ordering goods”. It also 

defines Sale’s word “sent” as causing somebody or something to “go or be 



47  

taken to a place” as well as “to direct and order”. But, the case in this verse is 

not like that, it is an invitation. 

As for “ ”, it is clear that Sale loses the whole idea in it by the use of “O 

God!” which indicates surprise and shock only. It only mimics the feelings of 

the women once they saw Yusuf. Ali and Dawood try to keep it and also fall 

into some trouble. Exegeses discuss that the person meant in this utterance is 

Yusuf, but the two translators use “us” causing a shift in the intention from 

Yusuf to the women who actually uttered the words. 

Verse 33: 

"

"

The word “ ” is the comparative form of “ ” and it indicates the meaning 

of “liked” or “preferred more than another”. This meaning of “ ” was the 

intended meaning in verse {8} in which the brothers agreed on their father love 

and preference for Yusuf and his brother more than them. In the present verse, 

Al-Qurtuby (2008) and Abd-Alaziz (2000) say that the word here was used in 

another meaning or it carries an additional shade of meaning since Yusuf does 

not like or prefer prison. The intended meaning is that prison is more tolerable 

and preferred to Yusuf than committing adultery since both are bad. 

A) “He said: ‘O Lord, the prison is more to my liking than that to which they 

invite me.’” 

D) “‘Lord’, said Joseph, ‘sooner would I go to prison than give in to their 

advances.’” 

S) “Joseph said, O Lord, a prison is more eligible unto me than the crime to 

which they invite me.” 



48  

Both Ali and Sale take the main meaning of “like” and “enjoy” so they use 

“liking” and “eligible”. These two words in English are used for positive things 

unlike prison which cannot be positive or good. Dawood uses “would” which 

indicates the meaning of preference and choosing what is best. It might be better 

to use “preferable” or “more tolerant” to indicate the exact meaning of the 

verse. 

Verse 36: 

"

"

This verse includes a case of metonymy. As illustrated in “ ” 

which is a form of metonymy based on referring to an entity by its future status. 

People do not press wine, rather they press grapes and the result is wine. In 

verse {36} it is said that the man saw himself pressing wine – this is the 

metonymy. This example is studied by Al-Salem (2008) in her study on 

metonymy and how to translate it. She says that the phrase “ ” 

indicates two actions: first, the pressing of grapes and second, the making of 

wine out of the pressed grapes. 

A) “… I see myself (in my dream) pressing wine” 

D) “… I dreamt that I was pressing grapes” 

S) “… it seemed to me in my dream that I pressed wine out of grapes” 

Following Al-Salem (2008), Dawood’s translation is inaccurate because it only 

gives the first part of the meaning which is pressing grapes, and it is not 

necessary that all grape pressing is for making wine. Ali renders the metonymy 

as it is and the result is acceptable and intelligible. Sale prefers to avoid the use 

of a metonymy and tends to use a normal phrase. Metonymy is a device that 



49  

reveals high eloquence and rhetoric in the Quran, and since keeping it does not 

cause a problem of understanding for the readers then it is better to be kept. 

Verse 42: 

"

"

These words were uttered by Yusuf while dwelling in prison and after telling his 

two companions the interpretations of their dreams. Yusuf asked the man who 

saw himself pressing wine to tell the king about him once he is saved and free 

according to the interpretation. In this verse any translator has to be very careful 

when dealing with two words “ ” and “ ”. The first is very important, and 

a wrong understanding of its meaning leads to a problem in faith and 

blasphemy. Al-Waseet (1972) gives “ ” two opposing meanings; “to do 

without certainty and surety” or “to do with certitude”. It is the role of the 

translator to understand which of the two antonymous meanings is used in a 

certain context. In surat “Yusuf”, his interpretation of dreams is not an act of 

sorcery or one’s own expectations; it is based on revelation sent to Yusuf by 

Allah. In the previous verse, Yusuf tells the two men, whom he interpreted their 

dreams that the dreams will happen for sure. This is clear in the verb “ ” 

meaning “it is to be done for sure”. 

“ ” and “ ” are used by people in usual everyday speech to mean 

“remember” as the antonym of “forget”. In this verse this shade of meaning is 

actually retained but the use of “remember” does not fulfill the purpose of the 

verse. The exegeses say that Yusuf did not want the man to remember him 

rather he wanted the man to tell the king about him and about his good doings 

and ability to interpret. 

A) “…and to that one whom he considered about to be saved, he said: 

‘mention me to thy lord.’” 



50  

D) “And Joseph said to the prisoner who he knew should survive: 

‘Remember me in the presence of your lord.’” 

S) “And Joseph said unto him whom he judged to be the person who should 

escape of the two, remember me in the presence of thy lord.” 

Among the three translations, Dawood’s is the best for the word “ ” because 

his use of “knew” gives the exact meaning of sureness. Ali’s “consider” and 

Sale’s “judge” carry within them the meaning of uncertainty, which is rejected 

by the exegeses in this verse. As for “ ”, Ali gives the exact meaning with 

the use of “mention me”. Dawood and Sale take the main meaning of the word 

and lose the extra meaning. 

Verse 43: 

"

"

In verse {43}, the king sees in his dream “cows”, which is clear in the word 

“ ”, the plural form of the feminine “ ”. It is one kind of the whole group 

of cattle. 

A) “I do see (in a vision) seven fat kine…” 

D) “I saw seven fatted cows…” 

S) “Verily I saw in my dream seven fat kine…” 

In Quran exegeses, the use of “kine” by Ali and Sale is not acceptable. What 

they actually do is to give a superordinate form to replace a subordinate one, 

when there is a word in the target text suitable for the original target text word. 

The word “kine” in Longman Dictionary (1987) is defined as “the old use of 

cattle”. It gives examples of cattle including cows and bulls. This meaning in 



51  

Arabic is found in “ ” as a general word, this is different from the singular 

form of “ ” which is only for the female. 

Verse 49: 

""

The item “ ” is a highly complex word in this verse. Exegeses discuss this 

word and they give it three meanings all found and present in the verse: 

1. People will press grapes and olives to produce wine and oil. 

2. People will find shelter and be saved from the famine. This meaning is 

also found in Al-Waseet (1972). It gives “ ” the meaning of “

” and this is the same idea. It is used as a synonym of “ ” as “being 

saved”. 

3. People will have rain after seven years of continuous drought. This 

meaning is found is surat “Al-Naba” verse {14} “ ” to mean 

“clouds full of rain”. This meaning is also found in “ ” which carries 

the meaning of “having rain” since “rain” in Arabic has many names 

including “ ”. 

The problem that arises is that no English word carries all three meanings. 

This causes great problems for the translators and loss is inevitable. 

A) “…and in which they will press (wine and oil).” 

D) “…in which the people will press the grape.” 

S) “…and wherein they shall press wine and oil.” 

It is obvious that the three translators only take one aspect of the word that is 

pressing grapes and olives. It is impossible to find a word in English that carries 

the three meanings, so we can either accept the loss of meaning, or the translator 

will need to add more words than are actually there in the text to give the 

intended meanings, consequently, the level of informativity will be 



52  

downgraded. This verse is a case where inference in behalf of the reader is 

needed. 

Verse 55: 

""

The verse has a political, economic and social connotation. Yusuf presents the 

two important and major characteristics for any person who is to take charge 

and be in a high rank in society. First, he gives “ ” and this represents the 

person who is responsible. Second, is “ ” meaning that the person should 

have sufficient knowledge and be aware of what and how to control the country 

and manage its affairs. 

A) “…I will indeed guard them as one that knows (their importance)” 

D) “…I shall husband them wisely” 

S) “…for I will be a skillful keeper” 

In Ali’s translation we do find the two meanings in “guard” and “know” but he 

changes the form to be a case of comparison. Such a change is not needed. 

Dawood does the same, but he uses a verb “husband” to give the meaning of 

“ ” and an adverb “wisely” for “ ”. He first changes the order and changes 

the form. Again, this is a change which is not needed. 

Sale’s translation, despite the change of form, can be considered the best for it 

gives the two characteristics side by side to show that they are necessary and 

inseparable. 

Verse 65: 

"

"



53  

The issue of “ ” is found in this verse as well as verses {19}, {62} and 

{88}. Exegeses count what commodities were exchanged by people as goods, 

they include: money, desert yields, animal hide and hair, shoes and leather. 

Following are how each translator translates the word in the four verses: 

A) “Treasure” {19}; “stock in trade” {62} and {65}; “scanty capital” {88}. 

D) “Merchandise” {19}; “silver” {62}; “money” {65}; “money” {88}. 

S) “Merchandize” {19}; “money” {62}; “money” {65}; “money” {88} 

One point that has to be mentioned here is that of consistency. In all four verses, 

“ ” is used in the same way, carrying the same meaning, and this is found 

in all exegeses. Consequently, the different translations for one word having the 

same meanings, shows the lack of consistency in the three translations causing 

them to lose their efficiency. In the Longman Dictionary (1987), “merchandise” 

is given the meaning of “things for sale; goods”; as a result, “merchandise” can 

be considered the best translation for all four verses. 

Verse 78: 

""

The brothers of Yusuf talk about their father and describe him as “ ” and 

“ ”. All exegeses agree that the two words are different. “ ” refers to the 

father’s old age, while “ ” means that he is honorable. 

A) “He has a father aged and venerable.” 

D) “This boy has an aged father.” 

S) “Verily, this lad hath an aged father.” 

Dawood and Sale take the two words to carry the same meaning so they use 

only “aged”. Ali was aware of the two intended meanings, thus using both 

“aged” and “venerable” and this is exactly what the brothers meant. 



54  

Verse 83: 

"

"

This verse should be dealt with along with verse {18} 

"

" 

Once again we find the problem of consistency in these two verses. Following 

are the two ways each translator chose to deal with them: 

A) “Nay, but your minds have made up a tale (that may pass) with you” {18} 

“Nay, but ye have yourselves contrived a story (good enough) for you” 

{83} 

D) “No, he cried. Your souls have tempted you to do evil.” {18} and {83} 

S) “Nay, but ye yourselves have contrived the thing for your own sakes” 

“Nay, but rather ye yourselves have contrived the thing for your own           

sake.” 

Both verses represent the words of the father when he received the bad news of 

losing Yusuf and then losing Yusuf’s younger brother. Both cases resemble the 

psychological state which the father was in once hearing such shocking news. 

His feelings were all of sadness, grief, depression and pain. So, the importance 

of consistency which we see in Dawood’s translation is what is needed for a 

good translation. 

Verse 87: 



55  

"

" 

The word “ ” can carry several meanings. “Soul”, “spirit”, “essence”… etc 

all found in Al-Mawrid(1997). Azamakhshari (1407 H), Al-Qurtuby (2008) and 

Abd-Alaziz (2000) consider it to have the meaning of “ ” which is 

not one of the several meanings found in Al-Mawrid. The meaning here is a call 

not to give up searching for the two brothers because there will always be God’s 

mercy and relief. 

A) “And never give up hope of Allah’s soothing mercy.” 

D) “Do not despair of God’s spirit.” 

S) “And despair not of the mercy of God.” 

Dawood is faulty in his translation. He takes the word “ ” literally, resulting 

in a wrong translation depending on the Quran exegeses. What Ali and Sale do 

is more acceptable since they understand the meaning that is intended in this 

verse and thus use “mercy”. 

Verse 94: 

""

Al-Qurtuby (2008) and Abd-Alaziz (2000) define the word “ ” as “smell”. 

They narrate that when the brothers left Egypt, after Yusuf ordered them to take 

his shirt and put it on his father’s face to see again, Ya’qoob, the father, told 

those sitting with him in Palestine that he could smell the smell of Yusuf. For 

sure, all those around him did not believe him and thought him to be mad from 

the time he had lost Yusuf. The word “ ” is also followed by “ ” as if the 

meaning will be “I smell the smell of Yusuf.” 

A) “I do indeed scent the presence of Joseph” 



56  

D) “I feel the breath of Joseph” 

S) “Verily, I perceive the smell of Joseph.” 

We can notice that Dawood’s translation is not exact. His use of “feel the 

breath” is different from “scent his smell”. You feel the breath of a person when 

being close to you only. Ali keeps the verb “smell” found in “ ” but changes 

“smell” the noun found in “ ” to “the presence”. Sale does the opposite by 

keeping “smell” the noun and losing “smell the verb”. A good translation may 

be “I feel the smell of Yusuf” which maintains both the meaning and the form 

of the original. 

Another point in this verse is in “ ”. Here the father knows that his 

people will not believe his words for they already accuse him of stupidity and 

losing his way; they see him as a ‘dotard’, a foolish liar and one who is 

hallucinating. 

A) “…Nay, think me not a dotard” 

D) “…Though you will not believe me” 

S) “…although ye think that I dote.” 

Ali’s phrase gives the meaning of the father asking his people not to think he is 

a dotard when he told them what he can scent. This does not give the indication 

found in the books of exegeses that they already believe him to be a dotard. 

What Dawood does is to give the connotative meaning directly, i.e. rather than 

saying “you think I am not saying the truth” he said “you don’t believe me”, the 

meaning is acceptable, but there is no need to change the form. 

Sale’s translation is acceptable because it gives the exact meaning and in the 

exact form. 

Verse 99: 

""



57  

Al-Qurtuby (2008), Abd-Alaziz (2000) and Nofal (1989) apply the meaning of 

“embraced” to the word “ ”. So when Yusuf met his family, he embraced 

them and took them in his arms. 

A) “He provided a home for his parents.” 

D) “He embraced his parents.” 

S) “He received his parents unto him.” 

“ ” seems to have caused a problem for Ali, because in Al-Waseet (1972) it is 

also given the meaning of “to give someone a home”. As a result, we find him 

using “provide a home” which is exactly what we find in Al-Waseet. Sale uses 

the word “receive” which cannot be considered wrong but it causes the situation 

to lose its emotional impact with the warmth and strong feelings with a 

separated family united once again. Dawodod’s translation is exact and gives 

the intended meaning and effect found in the verse. 

Verse 100: 

"

"

This verse seems to be very confusing for the translators. There are four issues 

to be discussed here. We start with “ ” which is used to show the high 

position to which Yusuf lifted his parents in respect and gratitude. Second, 

Yusuf raised his parents to the throne as found in the exegeses for the word 

“ ”. 

A) “And he raised his parents high on the throne (of dignity).” 

D) “He helped his parents to a couch.” 

S) “And he raised his parents to the seat of state.” 



58  

It is clear that Dawood’s choice of “helped” for “ ” is mistaken. The word 

“help” in Longman Dictionary (1987) is defined as “be of use to; assist” as if 

the parents were weak. Such a translation causes the meaning of respect for the 

parents to be lost, indicating weakness which is not in the verse at all. Exegeses 

lead us to noticing that Dawood commits another mistake in his understanding 

of “ ”. It is difficult to accept the fact that a “throne” and a “couch” are the 

same; they are different. Once again, the use of “couch” also causes the verse to 

lose the feelings of high ranks and noble positions. 

The third point in this verse is problematic for its interference with religious 

beliefs. It is known that Muslims and believers prostrate only for Allah in 

worship. This verse uses the word “ ” meaning “in prostration” and it is also 

found in verse {4}. The brothers did not prostrate in worship for their brother 

Yusuf; they actually bowed their heads to show respect. 

A) “And they fell down in prostration (all) before him.” 

D) “And they fell all on their knees and prostrated themselves before him.” 

S) “...fell down and did obeisance unto him” 

Longman Dictionary (1987) defines the terms used by the translators as follows: 

Prostration: “lying on one’s front, face downwards, esp. in obedience or 

worship.” 

Obeisance: “a show of respect and obedience, esp. by bending the head or upper 

body.” 

Obviously, “prostration” cannot be the acceptable translation since it carries the 

intention of worship, and this is religiously rejected. Consequently, Ali, and 

Dawood commit a mistake when