A clarification of questions : an unabridged translation of Resaleh towzih al-masael

By: Contributor · December 3, 2008 · Filed Under Humour, Media Law · 10 Comments

Or, why academia matters

Here is what Azim Nanjim, who was with Oklahoma State University at the time before moving to the University of Florida, says in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion,

Except for a scholarly Foreword by Michael Fischer and Mehdi Abedi, which sets the work in context, there are major problems with the translation. It lacks all the necessary elements of scholarly apparatus, in particular a proper definition and explanation of technical and juristic terms. The attempted Glossary is totally inadequate and organized haphazardly with no regard for the order of Arabic and Persian terms. The translation itself contains many errors and is very misleading in places. The work as a whole could have done with considerable editing. As it stands, the translation is a case of lost labor.
[emphasis added]

Hamid Algar in the Department of Near Eastern Languages at the University of California, continues the shredding in the International Journal of Middle East Studies,

To the turgid flood of books generated by the Islamic Revolution of Iran has now been added a complete but crude translation of Imam Khomeini’s compendium of legal rulings, Tauzih al-masd’il…
the translation of Tauzih al-masdail could have been a worthwhile project if executed properly.

The translator, J. Borujerdi, defends his work against anticipated criticism by saying that “a literal approach was deemed more likely to preserve the intent and content of the original” (p. xxx), but it would be misleading to characterize his version as a literal rendering. Borujerdi’s method has been to substitute mechanically English words for Persian ones with very little regard for meaning. Some of the results are that the Persian namdz guzdrdan or namdz khwdndan (to perform or recite a prayer) has been translated throughout as “laying a prayer,” a meaningless expression; that sigha (a woman married for a contractually specified period) has been rendered as “formula,” so that zani ki sigha mishavad is translated as “a woman who becomes a formula” (p. 319); and that hadas (a bodily function or state rendering ablution necessary) is rendered as “mishap” (p. 425). In several cases, the English word chosen reflects a misunderstanding of the original; thus the form of divorce involving renunciation by the wife of her dowry (khul) has been translated as “the dethroning divorce” (p. 334), an absurdity clearly inspired by a confusion between khul and khal (the deposition of a ruler). In other cases, the English word used is lexically correct but fails to convey the technical meaning of the Persian. One example of this is the rendering of shikasta namaz khwdndan (to abbreviate the prayer in specified circumstances) as “laying the prayers brokenly” (p. 187), a grotesque expression sure to baffle the reader. “Imitation” (p. 200) is a marginally defensible translation of iqtidd (following an imam in prayer), but unless expanded and clarified in English translation it is contextually meaningless. Makruh could be legitimately translated, in some contexts, as “abominable” and “loathsome,” the words chosen by Borujerdi (see p. xxxi; why he has not settled on one of the two words for consistent use throughout the work is unclear). However, in the terminology of fiqh, makruh designates something disapproved of and best left undone, although not forbidden; the word does not convey the sense of moral or aesthetic disgust that accompanies “abominable” and “loathsome.” Moreover, both English words imply a higher degree of distaste than does “unlawful,” the word Borujerdi uses for haram, whereas an act that is makruh is, of course, less reprehensible than one that is haram. Some of the foregoing might, of course, be ascribed to difficulties experienced by Borujerdi in the manipulation of English, but his translation also provides evidence for other kinds of disability. He seems to imagine that the Qur’an has a Sura entitled “Yes” (see p. 72), for this is how he renders Surat Yasin, evidently unaware that the name of the Sura is always written Y-S in the Arabic script.

[Even the most rudimentary Western scholar, or any elementary school student (not even high school) in many parts of the world, would know this]

…In sum, this is a book that only those with an avid and undiscriminating appetite for literature on Iran will wish to acquire.
[emphasis added]