Fidelity, beauty, and accessibility: a triadic analysis of three English translations of the Qur’an

Imagine trying to translate a song that is famous not just for its lyrics, but for the specific rhythm of its melody, the weight of its history, and the way it sounds when sung aloud. If you change the words to make them easier to understand for a modern audience, you might lose the original rhythm. If you keep the ancient rhythm to preserve the beauty, the new listeners might not understand the meaning. If you focus only on the literal meaning of every word, the song might sound stiff and awkward. This is the central challenge facing anyone who tries to translate the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, into English. For centuries, scholars have debated whether such a translation is even possible, arguing that the original Arabic text is so perfectly formed that moving it into another language inevitably loses something essential. Because of this, English versions are often called "translations of meanings" rather than the text itself. Yet, as the demand for English versions has grown over the last hundred years, dozens of different translations have appeared, each making different choices about what to keep and what to change.

A team of researchers from the University of Mataram in Indonesia set out to understand how these different translations handle this impossible balancing act. They did not try to declare one version the best. Instead, they proposed a new way to look at the work, breaking the goal of translation down into three competing priorities. The first is semantic fidelity, which means sticking as closely as possible to the exact meaning and theological details of the original Arabic words. The second is aesthetic beauty, which focuses on capturing the literary power, rhythm, and emotional impact of the text, even if it means changing some words to make the English flow better. The third is comprehensibility, which prioritizes making the text easy to understand for a modern reader, often by explaining difficult concepts or using everyday language. The researchers argued that a translator cannot maximize all three of these goals at the same time; choosing to excel in one area usually means sacrificing something in the others.

To test this idea, the team selected three famous English translations that represent different eras and approaches. The first was Marmaduke Pickthall's 1930 version, written by a British convert to Islam who aimed for strict accuracy. The second was Arthur J. Arberry's 1955 version, created by a scholar who focused on the literary and poetic qualities of the text. The third was Mustafa Khattab's 2015 version, a modern translation designed specifically to be clear and accessible to contemporary readers. The researchers analyzed six short chapters of the Qur'an, including the opening chapter and several short prayers that are recited daily by millions of people. They looked at specific words and phrases where the Arabic is difficult to translate, such as terms describing God's nature, the concept of a "clinging clot" in embryonic development, and the mysterious "Night of Power."

The analysis revealed that each translator consistently prioritized one of the three goals across the entire text, creating a distinct profile for their work. Pickthall's translation leaned heavily on semantic fidelity. He kept the original Arabic name for God, used old-fashioned English words to maintain a sense of sacred distance, and followed the grammatical structure of the original as closely as possible. This approach preserved the theological precision but often made the text feel archaic and harder for a modern reader to grasp immediately. Arberry's translation prioritized aesthetic beauty. He chose words that sounded rhythmic and dramatic, used metaphors to capture the emotional weight of the verses, and rearranged sentences to create a poetic flow. This made the text beautiful to read aloud, but sometimes at the cost of literal accuracy or specific theological details. Khattab's translation focused entirely on comprehensibility. He used modern, plain English, added brief explanations inside the text to clarify who was speaking or what a difficult term meant, and removed archaic language. This made the meaning very clear for a new reader, but it sometimes flattened the poetic density and the mysterious quality of the original.

The study found that these differences were not random or limited to specific verses; they were consistent patterns that defined each translator's entire project. When the researchers looked at the most difficult words to translate, the trade-offs became even clearer. For a term describing God as the one who is self-sufficient and sought by all, Pickthall used a long, precise phrase to capture every nuance. Arberry chose a short, poetic metaphor that sounded beautiful but lost some of the specific meaning. Khattab used a simple, functional description with a small note to explain the concept, ensuring the reader understood the idea immediately. The researchers concluded that translating a text as dense and layered as the Qur'an is not just a linguistic task of swapping words; it is an act of interpretation where the translator must decide which value to protect when they cannot have them all.

This research suggests that there is no single "correct" way to translate the Qur'an into English. Instead, every translation is a specific choice about what matters most to the intended reader. A student studying theology might prefer a version that keeps the original structure and terms, even if it is difficult to read. A person seeking a poetic experience might choose a version that sounds like literature, even if it takes some liberties with the literal meaning. A new reader or someone looking for a clear explanation might choose a modern version that prioritizes understanding above all else. The study offers a tool for readers to understand these choices, helping them see that the differences between translations are not mistakes, but deliberate strategies. By recognizing that accuracy, beauty, and clarity are often in tension with one another, readers can better appreciate the unique strengths and limitations of the version they are holding, understanding that the translator has made a conscious decision about what to bring forward and what to leave behind.