WI: Quranic Vulgate?

Is it possible for a translation from the original Arabic of the Quran to be translated for a wider audience? The most likely candidate would be Persian, since it was already a prestige language, right? Could translations into multiple different languages occur as well, and would that prevent the assimilation of Levantine and North African peoples into a pan-Arab culture?
 
Really hard to achieve, even nowadays.

Arab is the language God used to reveal the true religion, not Persian, not Berber, not anything else (while Christians had the deal with "We can speak whatever language and be understood").

Associate this to an important superiority bias when it came to Arabic language (even if really brillant and ancients cultures as Persia), and it only make it harder (to not speak of Berbers that were barely considered as Muslims IOTL).

It could happen with a Mu'tazila lasting presence (itself really hard to achieve, for various reasons, but it's another topic) with Qu'ran being less considered as perfect and eternal word of God, but at this point Arab would already have a great precedence culturally and socially, and such change would probably most concerning "missions" and not followed by other caliphates, schools, or even distant Muslims states.
 
Agreed Arabic is "The Language OF GOD" and must be copied and read word for word in the original language much like the Torah is for the Jewish people, just look how much trouble Martin Luther stirred up translating the Bible from Latin into German so the common people could read it, Tsk, Tsk
 
just look how much trouble Martin Luther stirred up translating the Bible from Latin into German so the common people could read it, Tsk, Tsk

You had translations and a lot of biblical commentaries in common languages during the Middle-Ages. When common people heard about evengelical works, it was undirectly but often in their languages.
The problem wasn't Luther translating the Bible, it was Luther translating the Bible without the avail of the Church in order to prevent misconceptions and errors of translations, in a word : heresy.

So much for the myth of "people that never really read or understood Bible before Reformation".
 
Last edited:
Muslim missionaries have intentionally translated the Qur'an into Persian to reach non-Muslim Persians. But this was in order to convert them and eventually bring them over to the "real" Qur'an, so it wasn't really a true vulgate.

A large reason of why Arabic is so inextricably tied to the Qur'an is that Islam draws on a lot of traditional Arab cultural norms, and was seen as a return to traditional values by many Arabs. In addition, it was considered an Arab-only religion in the early Islamic period, where proselytization was not actively encouraged. Also, many imams think that translations will introduce bid'ah (innovations) into the translation. Changing/altering the Qur'an is especially frowned upon in Islam due to the emphasis on how Muhammad was the "Seal of the Prophets" and the Qur'an is the last and holiest book, etc.

Perhaps a vulgate could be more easily accepted in a heretical Muslim society, where Islam is seen as innovative and inclusive. On those grounds, a vulgate is perfectly acceptable. Maybe you could get such a society if an isolated Islamic community were to form in the Americas, or if the Indonesian Muslims are cut off from trade with the Arab world and start reforming their religion. However, I cannot see a way for a vulgate to be accepted in the wider Muslim world without changing Islam itself.
 
A large reason of why Arabic is so inextricably tied to the Qur'an is that Islam draws on a lot of traditional Arab cultural norms, and was seen as a return to traditional values by many Arabs. In addition, it was considered an Arab-only religion in the early Islamic period, where proselytization was not actively encouraged. Also, many imams think that translations will introduce bid'ah (innovations) into the translation. Changing/altering the Qur'an is especially frowned upon in Islam due to the emphasis on how Muhammad was the "Seal of the Prophets" and the Qur'an is the last and holiest book, etc.

Islam an Arab-only religion? That's very untrue and proselytization was at the heart of this religion from the very beginning. Even when Muhammad was alive, emissaries were sent to Egypt, Rome, Persia, Abyssinia asking the rulers to convert and preaching to them. This hardly would have taken place if Islam was an Arab only religion. And this doesnt take into account that a number of eminent companions of Muhammad were non-Arabs such as Bilal ibn Rabah, Salman al-Farsi (Salman the Persian) etc. Perhaps you are confusing this with the policies of the Umayyads who discouraged conversions among some non-Arabs in order to continue collecting taxes from them.

Translations of the Quran are widespread. How else would people know what the book says? The reason the Arabic remains is because of what you said, that bida'ah can be introduced. And classical Arabic is a highly flexible language where one word can have multiple meanings. That's why some translations say slightly different things.
 
Islam an Arab-only religion? That's very untrue and proselytization was at the heart of this religion from the very beginning. Even when Muhammad was alive, emissaries were sent to Egypt, Rome, Persia, Abyssinia asking the rulers to convert and preaching to them. This hardly would have taken place if Islam was an Arab only religion. And this doesnt take into account that a number of eminent companions of Muhammad were non-Arabs such as Bilal ibn Rabah, Salman al-Farsi (Salman the Persian) etc. Perhaps you are confusing this with the policies of the Umayyads who discouraged conversions among some non-Arabs in order to continue collecting taxes from them.

I was indeed referring to the discouragment of proselytization during the early Caliphate years. While the collection of jizya was certainly in their interest, there was also the perception at the time that Islam was an Arab-only religion, and that you couldn't "convert" to Islam, kind of like Jewish beliefs at the time. Seeing as Judaism is one of Islam's closest and earliest relatives, as well as a major influence upon Islam, that similarity is probably not coincidental. I will concede that this was different during Muhammad's lifetime, but many aspects of the Ummah changed after Muhammad's death.
 
Islam an Arab-only religion? That's very untrue and proselytization was at the heart of this religion from the very beginning.
That's caricaturizing the point, that was less Arab-only religion in the early centuries, than Arab-first.

1) You had an Arab cultural dominance, with Arab being the religious but as well political and cultural language; eventually, it comes to degree of arabisation being one of the main indication of social advancement.
The Pact of Umar is really interesting on that matter, even if its secondary authenticity (hard to say if the whole was concieved later or if it was a genuine account written down later) is debatable (as it was arguably considered genuine by later Islamic scholars, and used this way), especially the parts where Christians were forbidden to speak Arab, to read Qu'ran, to not use Arabic script, etc.

While it was diversly applied, critically after the VIIth century, it shows a will to make Arab and Islam tied up.

2) Proselytization was limited in the two first centuries of Islam , safe a wave of conversion in the first conquests of the concerned regions, but conversions didn't made it to equality of treatment.
Converted peoples as Berbers were considered as second class Muslims, being forced to pay the taxes raised by Byzantines, (monetary, or physically, such as sending troops to whoever ruled in Carthage) and to pay jizya as well, with general harassment.

Blaming it all on Umayyads is really pushing it : their indications on that matter (or other ones) were often ignored if being in opposition to local Arab nobility wishes.
The whole Arabic cultural hegemony, and refusal of indigenous Islam (for more just than Arab dominance, political centralisation of political/religious policies on Caliphe's head played a role, critically when they were all Arabs up to the Fatimids, a rival and heterodoxial dynasty)

Muhammad's policy is hardly representative of these situation and provinces conquered during the Rashidûn era remained largely Christian up to the XIth century (and having large countryside Christians populations up to much much later).

And classical Arabic is a highly flexible language where one word can have multiple meanings. That's why some translations say slightly different things.
That's the case for a lot of languages, and not always went against regular or official translations. Classical Arab kept growing more hard to translate popularly partially thanks to its "sanctuarisation".

Nothing really prevented a strong caliph/emir/etc. to gather around him enough legitimacy and scholars to undergo such official translation, safe as you said, the heresiac risk but that could be turned around, especially giving the religious caliphal authority; and the feeling that Arab should remain the language of Qu'ran, at least officialy (and therefore in mainstream religious usages).
 
Is it possible for a translation from the original Arabic of the Quran to be translated for a wider audience? The most likely candidate would be Persian, since it was already a prestige language, right? Could translations into multiple different languages occur as well, and would that prevent the assimilation of Levantine and North African peoples into a pan-Arab culture?
It would be particularly amusing if a true parallel to Vulgate happened. The Persians use a Persian translation, which then gets fixed and all conversions east of Persia are forced to use the Persian instead of the original Arabic (despite the fact that some of the converts speak very different tongues).
 
Another reason why a Vulgate wouldn't really be popular, is that the Quran is written in a mix of prose and poetry. The early Arabs were an oral culture, they prided themselves on poetry, orations etc. which is why the Quran was seen as such a phenomenal document since it outdid the poetry of the early Arabs, according to Islamic traditions. Even today its considered the greatest work in the Arabic language. One of Islam's claims is that the Qur'an's contents and style are inimitable. If this is the case no Muslim would accept a Vulgate.

Some Muslims point to its literary aspects as even a miracle of sorts. Much of the poetic and thematic aspect is lost in translations which is why another language couldn't really take its place. Its a similar case in any translation, much of the charm of the original language is lost.
 
Could something happen similar to this?

Justo González said:
This translation, which originated in Alexandria-the main city in Egypt-is called the Septuagint, or the version of the Seventy. . .This was because of an ancient legend that a number of Jewish scholars were commissioned to translate the Scripture and, after working independently, they found that their translations agreed exactly. The obvious purpose of the legend was to legitimize the translation as divinely inspired.
 
Top