Translatability of the Holy Quran

Quran Translation as Interpretation: The Classical Doctrine of Untranslatability and Its Consequences for Modern Quranic Discourse

Syed Ali Jaffri

Advanced Hawza module: The Noble Quran 2025/26

August 2026

 

Introduction

The question of whether the Quran can be translated is considerably more complicated than the apparently simple linguistic problem of transferring Arabic words into another language. At stake is a fundamental theological question: what exactly is being translated when the Quran is translated? If the Quran is understood as the literal speech of God revealed to Prophet Muḥammad (pbuh) in Arabic, then a rendering into English, Persian, Urdu, French, or any other language cannot be identical with the Arabic revelation. It may communicate aspects of its meaning, but it cannot reproduce its complete linguistic, rhetorical, phonetic, theological, and intertextual dimensions.

This distinction underlies the terminology many Muslim scholars traditionally prefer: tarjamat maani al-Quran, “translation of the meanings of the Quran,” rather than simply “translation of the Quran.” Contemporary Islamic institutions continue to make this distinction precisely. Egypt’s Dar al-Ifta, for example, explicitly states that a translation is not the Quran itself but a rendering of its meanings, while also affirming the legitimacy and usefulness of communicating Quranic meanings in other languages. (موقع دار الإفتاء المصرية)

The doctrine of Quranic untranslatability is therefore best understood as a claim about the relationship between revelation and representation. The Arabic Quran is the revealed discourse; a translation is a human linguistic representation of that discourse. This does not mean that translation is impossible in the ordinary communicative sense. Muslims throughout history have translated Quranic meanings for non-Arabic-speaking audiences. Indeed, the historical relationship between translation and tafsir shows that translation has often functioned as an interpretive activity rather than an independent linguistic operation. Recent scholarship on Persian Quranic translation, for example, demonstrates how early interlinear translations became inseparable from commentary and how tafsir supplied meanings that word-for-word translation could not adequately communicate. (Cambridge University Press)

The issue is particularly significant for modern Quranic discourse because translations increasingly serve as the primary encounter with the Quran for Muslims and non-Muslims who do not read Arabic. A translation can therefore acquire enormous authority in practice even when theology formally denies that it is the Quran. The translator’s vocabulary choices, syntax, punctuation, explanatory additions, footnotes, and treatment of ambiguity can shape how entire communities understand central Quranic doctrines.

This essay argues that Quranic translation is necessarily interpretation. The classical doctrine of untranslatability establishes the theological limits of translation, while the practice of translation demonstrates its hermeneutical necessity. The Shiʿi tradition provides an especially valuable perspective because its theories of tafsir, tawil, muḥkam and mutashabih, together with the interpretive authority of the Prophet and Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), make explicit the relationship between textual wording and authoritative meaning.

 

The Quran as Arabic Revelation

The starting point for the classical doctrine is the Quran’s own description of itself as an Arabic revelation. Quran 12:2 states:

“Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran so that you may understand.”

Similarly, Quran 43:3 declares:

“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Quran so that you may understand.”

And Quran 26:192–195 describes revelation as coming from the Lord of the worlds, brought down by the trustworthy angel Jibrael, and communicated:

“in a clear Arabic tongue.”

These verses do not merely identify Arabic as the accidental language of the first audience. They connect Arabic revelation with intelligibility, communication, and the form in which divine speech was disclosed. The Quran’s Arabic is therefore part of its revealed identity.

This theological premise distinguishes the Quran from a text whose semantic content can be detached completely from its linguistic form. In ordinary translation theory, one may distinguish between source-language form and transferable semantic content. The Quran complicates this distinction because its form itself is implicated in its miraculous character.

This connects to ijaz, the doctrine of Quranic inimitability. The Quran challenges its audience to produce something comparable to it, as in Quran 2:23 and 10:38, while Quran 17:88 presents the challenge in broader terms:

“Say: If mankind and the jinn were to come together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce its like, even if they supported one another.”

The challenge is not simply to reproduce a list of propositions. The Quranic phenomenon involves language, structure, rhetoric, sound, semantic density, and discourse. Consequently, translating the Quran into another language may reproduce propositions or approximate rhetorical effects, but it cannot reproduce the Arabic revelation as an identical linguistic event.

This is why Marmaduke Pickthall famously titled his English translation The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, while Arthur J. Arberry called his version The Koran Interpreted. These titles show that the English text cannot claim the same status as the Arabic revelation. Pickthall explicitly described his work as an attempt to convey the meaning and something of the charm of the Quran while acknowledging that it could not replace the Arabic original. (BYU Studies)

The distinction is therefore not merely semantic. It has implications for worship, ritual recitation, law, theology, and authority. A translated version can communicate what the Quran means, but it does not become a new revelation.

 

The Classical Doctrine of Untranslatability

The expression “classical doctrine of untranslatability” requires qualification. It would be historically inaccurate to claim that all Muslim scholars categorically prohibited Quranic translation. Contemporary scholarship has rightly challenged the simplistic narrative that classical Islam universally banned translation. Research on the history of Quranic translation shows considerable diversity in its functions and permissibility. The claim that all classical scholars absolutely prohibited translation is difficult to substantiate. (DOI)

What did become firmly established, however, was the distinction between the Quran and its translation. The Arabic revelation retained its unique status, while translation could communicate meanings without reproducing the Quran itself.

This distinction developed partly because the Quran was conceived as divine speech rather than merely divine information. A translation can transfer information while failing to reproduce the particular linguistic event through which revelation was delivered. Hence, a translation may be accurate as communication while remaining incapable of becoming the Quran ontologically or liturgically.

The relationship between translation and tafsir is particularly important. Modern Western translation theory sometimes assumes that translation and commentary are distinct genres. Historically, however, Quranic translation often operated within commentary. Research on early Persian translation demonstrates that translation became “inextricably tied” to tafsir, with interlinear renderings supplemented by explanations based on narrative traditions and circumstances of revelation. (Cambridge University Press)

This phenomenon exposes a fundamental hermeneutical truth: the translator must decide what the text means before deciding how to translate it.

Consider a Quranic word with several possible semantic values. The translator cannot simply transfer the Arabic vocabulary item into English. The translator must determine which semantic range is relevant in the immediate context. Even where the translator chooses a word that preserves ambiguity, that choice itself constitutes an interpretation.

Modern studies confirm the problem. Research on Quranic lexical ambiguity has found that none of several major English translations adequately reproduces all the semantic possibilities of selected Quranic words. (Iranian Journal of Translation Studies) Likewise, recent scholarship identifies polysemy, metaphor, ambiguity, ellipsis, deixis, intertextuality, and culturally bound terminology as major obstacles to complete semantic equivalence. (Taylor & Francis Online)

Thus, the classical doctrine of untranslatability anticipates an insight now familiar within translation studies: equivalence is never purely mechanical.

 

Quranic Evidence for Interpretation

The Quran itself establishes a sophisticated hermeneutical framework. One of the most important passages is Quran 3:7:

“He is the One who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are decisive—they are the foundation of the Book—and others that are ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is deviation, they follow what is ambiguous from it, seeking discord and seeking its interpretation. But no one knows its interpretation except God—and those firmly rooted in knowledge say: ‘We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.’”

The verse is central to Muslim theories of interpretation because it distinguishes muḥkamat from mutashabihat. The muḥkam verses function as a foundational interpretive framework, while mutashabih passages require greater hermeneutical care.

This verse has major implications for translation. If the Quran itself acknowledges different degrees of semantic accessibility, then the translator cannot assume that every verse has one immediately recoverable equivalent in another language.

The Shiʿi exegetical tradition places considerable emphasis on this principle. In al-Mizan, Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ṭabatabai argues that the Quran contains decisive verses that serve as the basis for understanding verses whose meanings are more difficult or susceptible to ambiguity. He further maintains that Quranic verses illuminate one another and that tawil should not simply be reduced to arbitrary reinterpretation. (Al-Islam.org)

Tabatabai’s approach matters because it resists the idea that interpretation is merely subjective. For him, the Quran possesses an internal coherence through which its passages can illuminate one another. The interpreter’s task is consequently not to impose an external ideology upon the text but to reconstruct its internal conceptual system.

This directly affects translation. If Quranic meaning is internally interconnected, the translator who translates isolated verses without considering the Quran as a whole risks producing semantically incomplete or theologically distorted renderings.

Quran 39:23 reinforces this internal relationship:

“Allah has sent down the best discourse, a Book consistent in itself and repeatedly presenting its teachings.”

The term mutashabih in this verse has a different sense from its use in 3:7, where it describes verses susceptible to ambiguity. In 39:23, it points toward correspondence, harmony, and consistency. Tabatabai emphasises this distinction, arguing that the Quran’s parts have a structural and semantic relationship to one another. (Al-Islam.org)

Translation, therefore, should not be treated as isolated lexical substitution. It is an attempt to reconstruct a coherent discourse.

 

Tafsir, Tawil, and the Problem of Meaning

The distinction between tafsir and tawil is crucial to the Shiʿi approach. In later Islamic discourse, tafsir generally came to signify explanation or commentary, while tawil could signify a deeper or ultimate referent of a Quranic expression. Yet the historical meanings of these terms are more complex.

Tabatabai’s interpretation of Quran 3:7 is particularly significant. He rejects the simplistic equation of tawil with a subjective interpretation that contradicts the text’s apparent meaning. Instead, he argues that tawil can refer to the reality to which a Quranic statement ultimately points. (Al-Islam.org)

This distinction allows us to formulate a useful three-level model:

1. The Arabic revealed expression — the Quran in its original linguistic form.
2. Its explanatory interpretation (tafsir) — the scholarly attempt to clarify linguistic and contextual meaning.
3. Its deeper referential reality (tawil) — the reality toward which the divine discourse ultimately points.

Translation primarily operates at the second level, although translators inevitably make assumptions about the first and sometimes claim to communicate aspects of the third.

This explains why translation cannot be neutral. The translator must determine whether an expression is literal, metaphorical, legal, rhetorical, theological, or eschatological. The decision inevitably reflects an interpretive framework.

The Quran itself warns against arbitrary interpretation in 3:7. The problem is not interpretation as such, since interpretation is necessary; the problem is interpretation driven by distortion, ideological preference, or insufficient knowledge.

This distinction is highly relevant to contemporary Quranic discourse. Modern readers frequently encounter a translation without access to the Arabic linguistic environment, classical commentaries, asbab al-nuzul (occasions of revelation), variant readings, legal theory, or the broader Quranic text. The translation can consequently become an invisible commentary. What appears to the reader as “the Quran in English” may actually embody the translator’s decisions concerning theology, grammar, rhetoric, and jurisprudence.

A doctoral study of Quranic translation confirms precisely this phenomenon: translators from different theological and sectarian backgrounds are influenced by the tafsir traditions and doctrinal assumptions underlying their interpretations. (Durham e-Theses)

 

The Shiʿi Perspective: Quran, Ahl al-Bayt, and Interpretive Authority

The Shi’i tradition adds another dimension to the problem of translation: who has authoritative access to the Quran’s interpretation?

Imami Shi’ism regards the Prophet (pbuh) and the Ahl al-Bayt (pbut), particularly the Imams, as authoritative interpreters of revelation. This is connected to the broader Shiʿi understanding of the Quran and Prophetic guidance as mutually necessary sources of religious knowledge.

The significance of this position becomes apparent in the interpretation of 3:7. Some Shi’i approaches associate the phrase “those firmly rooted in knowledge” with authoritative figures possessing a special relationship to divine knowledge. At the same time, modern Shi’i exegetes such as Tabatabai do not simply abandon rational and textual analysis in favour of isolated reports. Al-Mizan is notable for interpreting the Quran through the Quran while also engaging with hadith, theology, philosophy, history, and language.

A related methodological debate concerns whether the Quran’s apparent meaning can serve as evidence independently of transmitted reports. Sayyid Abu al-Qasim al-Khoi, in al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Quran, discusses the evidentiary status of the Quran’s apparent meanings and the problem of ambiguous verses. (Al-Islam.org)

The Shiʿi tradition therefore does not reduce interpretation to personal intuition. Instead, it constructs an interpretive hierarchy involving the Arabic text, Quranic context, reason, transmitted reports, jurisprudential principles, and the teachings attributed to the Prophet and Ahl al-Bayt.

For translation, this has an important consequence: a translation associated with a Shiʿi exegetical tradition may make different lexical and theological choices from a Sunni, Salafi, modernist, or secular translation.

Consider theological language concerning God. Quran 42:11 states:

“There is nothing like Him.”

Quran 112:4 similarly declares:

“And there is none comparable to Him.”

These verses establish a principle of divine incomparability. Consequently, passages using standard language must be interpreted within the Quran’s broader theological framework. Al-Mizan applies this principle when discussing verses that might, on a superficial reading, appear to attribute bodily characteristics to God. Ambiguous expressions must be understood through the Quran’s decisive theological principles. (Al-Islam.org)

A translation that renders every such expression with a strongly normal English term without qualification may therefore produce an interpretation that conflicts with Shiʿi tawhid. Conversely, a translator may insert interpretive language to avoid such implications. In either case, translation becomes interpretation.

 

The Consequences of Untranslatability for Modern Quranic Discourse

The classical distinction between Quran and translation has at least five major consequences for modern discourse.

6.1 Translation becomes an interpretive authority

The first consequence is that translations can acquire authority beyond their formal theological status. A Muslim may be told that “the translation is not the Quran,” yet encounter the Quran almost exclusively through English. The translation therefore becomes functionally authoritative.

This creates a paradox. Theologically, the translation is secondary; sociologically, it may become primary.

Digital media intensifies this problem. Quranic verses circulate on websites, social media, educational platforms, mobile applications, and search engines. Short translated quotations often appear without Arabic text, commentary, context, or alternative translations. A translator’s interpretive decision can thus become detached from the scholarly tradition that produced it.

The classical doctrine of untranslatability can serve as a corrective. By explicitly identifying translations as interpretations, readers are encouraged to compare renderings and consult Arabic sources and commentaries rather than treating one English version as infallible.

6.2 Translation exposes theological differences

Second, translation makes theological differences visible.

Quran 5:55, for example, has generated substantial exegetical discussion concerning the phrase wa-ladhina amau. Shiʿi exegetical traditions have historically connected the verse with Imam Ali (pbuh) in the context of charitable giving while bowing in prayer, whereas Sunni exegetes have treated the verse differently or questioned particular reports concerning its occasion.

A translation alone cannot settle this dispute. The Arabic text remains constant, but interpretations of its referents and historical context differ.

The same phenomenon appears in verses concerning divine attributes, prophecy, eschatology, leadership, law, and salvation. Translation does not eliminate theological disagreement; it often relocates it into lexical choices.

Consequently, comparative translation studies can become a form of comparative theology.

6.3 Translation can obscure semantic plurality

Third, translation tends to force choices where Arabic permits a broader semantic field.

A single Quranic term may carry several interconnected meanings. English frequently requires the translator to select one word. The resulting translation may therefore narrow the semantic field.

Linguistic research has well documented this problem. Studies of Quranic lexical ambiguity have found that different English translations resolve semantic plurality in different ways and that no single rendering necessarily captures the full range of the Arabic expression. (Iranian Journal of Translation Studies)

A responsible translation can respond by using footnotes, brackets, alternative renderings, transliteration, or explanatory notes. Recent research similarly recommends annotation, controlled transliteration, preservation of rhetorical structures, and explicit translator reflexivity as strategies for dealing with Quranic semantic complexity. (Taylor & Francis Online)

6.4 Literalism can become misleading

Fourth, the doctrine of untranslatability challenges simplistic literalism.

Literal translation is often assumed to be more faithful because it appears closer to the Arabic wording. Yet literal correspondence can distort the original’s communicative function.

For example, Quran 2:2 begins:

“That is the Book in which there is no doubt, guidance for the God-conscious.”

The Arabic demonstrative dhalika literally means “that,” yet many translations render it as “this is the Book.” The issue is not simply grammatical. Classical interpretation may understand the demonstrative as conveying exaltation, rhetorical distance, or reference to something already conceptually present.

A literal rendering can therefore preserve vocabulary while losing discourse function.

6.5 Excessive interpretation can also distort

The opposite danger is interpretive overreach.

If literalism can obscure meaning, hyper-interpretation can insert meanings that are not adequately supported by the Arabic text. This is especially problematic in sectarian or ideological translations.

Research on Persian Quranic translations has demonstrated how commentary can expand around difficult passages, including the muqaṭṭaat, the mysterious disjointed letters occurring at the beginning of certain surahs. (Cambridge University Press)

The translator therefore operates between two dangers:

under-interpretation, which produces misleading literalism, and
over-interpretation, which turns translation into an unmarked theological commentary.

The classical doctrine of untranslatability provides a conceptual solution: admit openly that translation is interpretation.

 

 

Universality and the Paradox of Arabic Revelation

At first glance, the Quran’s Arabic specificity appears to conflict with the universality of its message. Quran 34:28 states:

“We have not sent you except comprehensively to mankind, as a bearer of good news and a warner.”

Similarly, Quran 14:4 says:

“We did not send any messenger except in the language of his people, so that he might make the message clear to them.”

These verses create a productive tension. Revelation occurs through a particular language, but its message extends beyond the linguistic community of its first hearers.

Translation is therefore not an accidental modern activity. It emerges from the universalising dimension of revelation itself.

The Quran’s linguistic particularity does not mean that its message is restricted to Arabic speakers. Rather, translation becomes the means through which Arabic revelation enters other linguistic worlds.

The challenge is to avoid confusing the universality of the message with the identity of its linguistic form.

The Arabic Quran remains unique in its revealed form, while translation makes its meanings accessible to people who do not know Arabic. This is why contemporary Islamic authorities can simultaneously affirm the unique status of Arabic and encourage translation. Dar al-Ifta, for instance, explicitly describes translations as means of conveying Quranic meanings to people throughout the world. (موقع دار الإفتاء المصرية)

The result is not a contradiction but a distinction between revelation and communication.

 

Toward a Responsible Theory of Quranic Translation

If translation is interpretation, what would responsible Quranic translation look like?

First, the translator should explicitly acknowledge the distinction between the Quran and the translation of its meanings. This is not a weakness. It marks intellectual honesty.

Second, translators should work with tafsir. A Quranic translator should not rely solely on bilingual dictionaries. Quranic Arabic is embedded in a historical, literary, theological, and intertextual environment. Research has shown that translators are inevitably influenced by exegetical traditions, whether consciously or unconsciously. (Durham e-Theses)

Third, translators should preserve ambiguity where ambiguity is genuinely present. Not every semantic uncertainty needs to be eliminated. Sometimes the Arabic text deliberately permits several related meanings.

Fourth, translators should use notes when necessary. A concise footnote can preserve information that a single English word cannot.

Fifth, translators should distinguish translation from commentary typographically. Bracketed explanations, explanatory notes, and theological glosses should be clearly identified rather than presented as though they were part of the revealed text.

Finally, translations should be accompanied by appropriate engagement with the Arabic original. The goal is not to make non-Arabic readers permanently dependent upon Arabic scholarship, but to prevent the translated text from becoming detached from the linguistic revelation from which it derives.

 

The Shiʿi Contribution to a Modern Theory of Translation

The Shiʿi tradition can make a distinctive contribution to modern Quranic translation studies because it provides a sophisticated account of the relationship between text, interpretation, and authority.

The emphasis on the Ahl al-Bayt (pbut) does not necessarily imply that ordinary readers are incapable of understanding the Quran. Rather, it establishes a hierarchy of interpretive authority. The Quran is accessible enough to guide human beings, but difficult enough that deeper interpretation requires scholarship, tradition, and methodological discipline.

Tabatabai’s al-Mizan is especially significant for contemporary translation because it combines textual analysis with a systematic insistence that the Quran should be interpreted through its own internal relationships. His discussion of 3:7 emphasises that muḥkam verses function as foundations through which ambiguous verses can be understood. (Al-Islam.org)

This suggests that the ideal translator should not approach each verse as an isolated sentence. Instead, the Quran should be treated as a coherent discourse whose theological vocabulary develops across the entire text.

Shiʿi hermeneutics also warns against the arbitrary use of ambiguous passages. The problem identified in 3:7 is not merely linguistic confusion but the political and theological consequences of manipulating ambiguity. Al-Mizan explicitly connects the misuse of ambiguous verses with the danger of doctrinal deviation. (Al-Islam.org)

This insight is particularly relevant today. In an age of social media, political arguments, sectarian conflict, and algorithmic circulation of isolated quotations, translation can amplify decontextualised interpretations. A Quranic verse translated without context may become a slogan rather than part of a theological discourse.

A Shiʿi hermeneutic centred on contextual integration, tafsir, tawil, and the interpretive legacy of the Ahl al-Bayt (pbut) can therefore contribute to a more responsible model of translation.

 

Conclusion

The classical doctrine of Quranic untranslatability should not be reduced to the claim that the Quran cannot be translated. Such a formulation is both historically and conceptually inadequate. Translation has always played a role in communicating Islam across linguistic boundaries, and Muslim scholars have differed over its precise nature and permissibility. Contemporary scholarship likewise demonstrates that the historical tradition cannot be represented as a simple prohibition. (DOI)

The more defensible formulation is that the Quran itself, as revealed divine speech, cannot be reproduced in another language in a manner identical to the Arabic original. What can be translated is its meaning, or rather a humanly constructed representation of its meanings.

This distinction produces the central thesis of this essay: Quranic translation is necessarily interpretation.

The Quran’s own language establishes Arabic as the language of revelation, while its universal message necessitates communication beyond Arabic. Its distinction between muḥkam and mutashabih demonstrates that meaning can possess different levels of clarity. Its warnings against arbitrary tawil establish the ethical responsibility of interpretation. Its portrayal of itself as a coherent discourse means that individual verses cannot always be interpreted independently of the whole.

The Shiʿi perspective intensifies these considerations through its emphasis on tafsir, tawil, the internal interpretation of the Quran, and the authoritative role of the Prophet and Ahl al-Bayt. In al-Mizan, Tabatabai provides a particularly important model in which the Quran is interpreted through the Quran, with ambiguous passages referred back to decisive principles. (Al-Islam.org)

For modern Quranic discourse, the consequences are substantial. English and other translations should not be treated as transparent substitutes for the Arabic Quran. They are interpretive texts shaped by linguistic decisions, theological assumptions, exegetical traditions, and contemporary cultural contexts. Recent scholarship confirms that semantic ambiguity, polysemy, metaphor, deixis, ellipsis, and culturally embedded concepts make complete equivalence impossible. (Taylor & Francis Online)

Yet the impossibility of complete equivalence does not mean futility. On the contrary, translation is essential precisely because the Quran’s message addresses humanity beyond the linguistic community of seventh-century Arabia. The proper response to untranslatability is therefore not silence but responsible interpretation.

A responsible Quranic translation should make its own limitations visible. It should acknowledge its dependence upon tafsir, preserve significant ambiguities where possible, provide explanatory notes where necessary, distinguish commentary from translation, and encourage comparison with the Arabic original and multiple interpretive traditions.

The classical doctrine of untranslatability therefore has an unexpectedly modern consequence. Rather than preventing translation, it can teach readers how to read translations critically. It reminds Muslims and scholars alike that no English, Persian, Urdu, French, or other rendering can simply become the Quran. Every translation is a human act of interpretation standing between the reader and the Arabic revelation.

Theologically, this protects the uniqueness of revelation. Hermeneutically, it exposes the translator’s responsibility. Academically, it creates space for comparative study. And in the Shiʿi context, it reinforces the importance of reading the Quran through a disciplined relationship between text, reason, tafsir, tawil, and the interpretive legacy of the Ahl al-Bayt.

The most productive conclusion, therefore, is neither that the Quran is “untranslatable” in an absolute sense nor that it is fully translatable without loss. Rather, the Quran is translatable as meaning but untranslatable as the identical revealed Arabic discourse. Every translation consequently occupies a hermeneutical space: it is neither the Quran itself nor merely an arbitrary paraphrase. It interprets divine discourse, and its legitimacy depends on how responsibly it negotiates the distance between the revealed Arabic word and the linguistic world of its readers.