Only falsification of religion
can lead to violence.
(Pope John Paul II)

The Koran is the Holy Book of Muslims, the basis of Islam, the "primary source" of this world religion. Therefore, knowledge of the Qur'an and its correct understanding is necessary both for Muslims themselves and for those who are interested in Islam and religion in general. As the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan SI. Murshed emphasized in his speech at the "round table" in the State Duma held on November 1, 2004, it is the correct, "authentic understanding of the Koran" that can contribute to " improving the Islamic community, a more enlightened attitude to Islam "(Murshed, 2005, p. 22).

There are two main ways to learn the Qur'an, study it and understand it: one way is to get acquainted with the Holy Book in the original, but only a few people can read and understand the Qur'an written in Arabic in the seventh century, and the task of teaching classical Arabic to a wide range of people is hardly feasible. Therefore, there is only one other way-to understand the meaning of the Qur'an through translating it from Arabic into other languages. And such transfers are actually carried out. The Quran has been translated into most languages in Europe, Asia, and some African languages. The newspaper "Islam Minbare" reports that "according to the data of the magazine "IRS" published in Baku ("Heritage" - V. U.), about 500 transfers were made before 1998. The meaning of the Holy Quran has been translated into Urdu 98 times, Farsi 92 times, English 74 times, Turkish 58 times, French 29 times, Bengali 25 times, Spanish 17 times, Indonesian and German 13 times each, and Azerbaijani 12 times. in Russian-11 times, in Chinese and Italian - 10 times each" [Islam Minbare, 2005, N 2, p. 5]. Only in 2004, several translations of the Koran were published: in Russian - E. R. Kuliyev, B. Ya. Shidfar; in German-Adel Theodor Khoury; in English - Abdel Halim and a nine-volume translation by Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan. However, despite this, some theologians and scholars of Islamic studies express the opinion that it is inappropriate to perform any translations of the Koran. What can be the arguments in favor of such a position?

It is known that the Qur'an is considered a "miracle of God", a "Sign of God" ('yay-atu-llahi). It is characterized by the inimitable style of the syllable and the spirit of sacredness associated with the Divine Law and manifesting itself in mathematical symbolism [Ushakov, 1996, p. 79-80; 1997, p. 59], in the amazing word arrangement and structural organization of the text (en-nazm). All this creates the "wonderfulness" of the Qur'an and the "unattainability" of its artistic virtues, which are designated in Muslim dogma by the term "i'jaz al-Qur'an" (Makhlouf, 1978; Rezvan, 1991, pp. 89-90; Kiktev, 1985,

page 108

p. 123-125; Frolov, 1987, p. 102-106]. The concept of "inimitability" of the Qur'an is also based on its religious content and individual verses, which indicate that it is impossible for a person to create such a creation.(2:23; 10:38; 11:13; 17:88; 52:34). Accordingly, it should be concluded that it is impossible to convey the content and form of the Qur'an due to its "inimitable" and "unsurpassed" nature, and therefore it is impractical to translate it into other languages.

But is this conclusion valid? Apparently not. The fact is that the Holy Scriptures are called to carry the Word of God to people, and not to one people, but to many, or rather to the whole of humanity. Let us imagine that even in ancient times there would have been people who were in favor of banning translations of the Holy Scriptures into other languages, and that their "recommendations" would have found a positive response. Then only those who knew Hebrew would know about the Old Testament, and those who knew Greek would know about the New Testament, and so on. The Qur'an is the last of the monotheistic scriptures. This is the Holy Book of Muslims who speak and read a wide variety of languages. Moreover, like other scriptures, the Qur'an has universal spiritual, moral and cultural value. And that is why it must necessarily be translated into other languages. It is a high-quality, competent, carefully executed adequate translation of the Koran that will allow the reader to form a correct, not distorted idea of the content of this Holy Book.

The translation of the Qur'an should also be performed at the appropriate artistic level, reflecting its stylistic features, as well as its high spirituality. The translator must be proficient in both Arabic and the language being translated. They must be trained specialists in the field of linguistics, translation studies, religious studies, and possess literary abilities. It is also desirable that the translator has experience in translating works of art.

Often the question is raised about who can be a translator of the Koran-a believer or an unbeliever, a Muslim or a non-Muslim, etc. It can be said that the answer to this question is related to the problem of free will and predestination. Translations should be evaluated not on the basis of the translator's religiosity, especially in terms of its external, ceremonial aspect, but on the quality of translations, i.e., on the result of the work performed. Be that as it may, to leave the Holy Scriptures untranslated is to hide the Word of God from people and, therefore, to commit a great sin. But to listen to the Scripture without understanding any of its meaning is to be like the one of whom Ayat 2: 171 says: "Those who reject the Faith are like [a dumb animal], and when it is called upon, it cannot listen to it, but distinguishes itself just noise and shouting... They are deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no understanding! " 1

Thus, the need to translate the Qur'an, as well as other Holy Scriptures, into other languages seems obvious. However, does the principle "the more translations, the better" apply to translations of sacred books? I suppose not. Naturally, every translator of the Qur'an contributes to the disclosure of its content and meaning. And any translation, whatever its quality, is the basis for performing new, more advanced translations. And this is the undoubted benefit of any translation performed by a conscientious, qualified and unbiased translator. Naturally, no translation can be perfect, free from certain shortcomings. However, there are "errors" of various degrees-

1 Excerpts from the Qur'an in the text of the article, which do not indicate the translator, are given in the translation of the author of the article. This translation, made in rhythmic prose, has been completed and is currently being edited and prepared for publication.

page 109

penalties. And one can hardly welcome the appearance of translations that distort the meaning of the Holy Scripture, its conceptual foundations, or translations made in a dry, expressionless, "official" language that in no way reflects the spirit of the original. Such translations are unlikely to bring the desired benefit to readers or listeners, and sometimes they can mislead people and even cause considerable harm. Therefore, sometimes there are objections to translations that do not introduce anything fundamentally new in the transmission of the content and style of the Koran.

However, as shown above, it is necessary to translate the Qur'an. At the same time, the translator should take into account the peculiarity of this book that it is based on oral speech. The Qur'an is a record of Divine Revelation transmitted orally, the only scripture that does not have an author's written tradition. Translation difficulties caused by this fact have no analogues in the translation of written texts. Ellipses, omissions, "implications", hints, references to what was previously stated require the use of compensatory means in translation, which are not necessary when translating texts based on written traditions. Such tools are commentaries and interpolations based on tafsirs (interpretations of the Qur'an)2 or on other sources (on authoritative scientific works, etc.).

The translator of the Qur'an should be aware that when he begins his work, he assumes a huge responsibility. First of all, he should not act spontaneously, without an idea of what the theoretical and methodological foundations of the translation should be, which of the translation methods known in theory and practice he suggests using.

As you know, there are the following main types of translations: a) free (otherwise - free), b) literal (otherwise - literal, subscript) and c) semantic (sometimes it is called a translation of meanings, but this does not seem entirely correct, since such a term can be associated with a free translation that approximately conveys the " general meaning"of the original).

Free translation involves transmitting the content of what is written (said) in the most general form, without observing the correspondence between the original language and the translation language. Naturally, any free presentation or free interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is unacceptable in principle. An exception to the rule is allowed only for poetic translations that have other goals than traditional translations, for example, for such translations as Pushkin's "Imitations of the Koran" or the poetic presentation of the meaning of the Koran made by the modern scholar-arabist T. A. Shumovsky. The translator himself "wrote in the preface to his work" that "one should not look for a word-by-word reproduction of the monument: with respect to a rhymed text, such an action is impossible... "[cit. by: Aliev, 2004, pp. 124-125]. In other words, the translator did not set himself the task of performing an adequate translation of the Qur'an.

As for the literal translation, which is "a mechanical substitution of words of a given language as equivalents of words of another language while preserving the foreign-language construction" [Akhmanova, 1969, p. 317], it has long been considered "unacceptable" (according to the well-known linguist I. A. Melchuk [Melchuk, 1974, p. 200]). neither in theory nor in translation practice. After all, back in 1836, A. S. Pushkin wrote:: "A subscript translation can never be correct (my detente - V. U.). Each language has its own turns, its own agreed rhetorical figures, which cannot be translated into another language by corresponding words" [Pushkin, 1987, p. 37]. Famous researcher of the history of Bible translations M. I. Rizhsky

2 For the role of tafsirs, see [Suyuti, 2000, pp. 55-93].

page 110

He pointed out that a literal translation can lead to ambiguity and "complete darkness of the text" [Rizhsky, 1978, p.22, 122].

Semantic translation is the equivalent transformation of symbols of one sign system into symbols of another, not "mechanically", as it happens in literal translation, but by transcoding the text in the language of C first into a certain representation, into some initially unspoken information, that is, into meaning, which at the subsequent stage is transformed into text L2 . Thus, for literal translation , the transcoding procedure is one-step: T (text) L t - > T (text) L 2, while for semantic translation, it is two-step (TLj - " S (meaning) ->T L 2). In other words, in semantic translation, there is a transition from "establishing interlanguage correspondences" (my discharge - V. U.), i.e., from the stage at which the literal translation "stops", to establishing "semantic equivalences" (my discharge - V. U.), which is possible only when referring to the " semantic representation"[Melchuk, 1974, p. 200].

As a rule, most translators (and not only of the Qur'an) use semantic translation in their work empirically, based on experience, without reference to theoretical premises. However, despite the obvious advantages of semantic translation, relapses of literal translation are allowed by many Quran translators. In particular, examples of literalisms can be found in the translation made by Academician I. Y. Krachkovsky. Although this translation is not a complete work, in 1963, after the death of the scientist, which followed in 1951, it was first published "as archival material". Despite the fact that it uses a "lowercase form of rendering the Arabic text", and despite the fact that it "was not intended in this form for printing" [Gryaznevich, 1986: 9-10], this work was nevertheless widely replicated in 1986, 1990 and in subsequent years .3

Krachkovsky's translation played a positive role in the history of Russian Qur'an studies, however, since it was essentially a "draft version", readers who turned to this translation sometimes got a wrong, distorted idea of both the content of the Qur'an and its stylistic and artistic merits. It would be possible not to refer to this unfinished work here, but since it is widely used and even quoted, I think it is advisable to draw attention to some of its shortcomings, which are explained by the fact that the translator stopped his work at the stage of "preliminary", interlinear translation.

The fact that the interlinear translation leads to ambiguity and inaccuracy of the text can be illustrated, in particular, by the example of I. Y. Krachkovsky's translation of such a fragment of Ayat (7: 31): ya bani adama khuzu zintatakum 'inda kulli masjidin -" O sons of Adam! Take your jewelry from every mosque... "In this translation, the" main " meanings of the lexemes that make up phrase 4 are combined mechanically, without reference to the meaning .

3 I note that by reprinting the unfinished work of I. Y. Krachkovsky in large print runs, the "business people" claimed that they were supposedly paying tribute to the memory of this remarkable scientist and respect for his work. However, in reality, they were doing this outstanding scientist a "disservice" by presenting a draft version for the completed work. Moreover, they harmed the Qur'an and Islam. People who read the Bible in the Synodal translation and the Koran in the translation of I. Y. Krachkovsky and compare them may think that the Bible is much more artistic, understandable and clear than the Koran. It may not occur to these readers that the original Qur'an is not at all what publishers and translators imagine it to be, and that it is possible, in principle, to make a translation that conveys the meaning and style of the original in an artistic form.

4 For more information, see: [Ushakov, 1996, pp. 72-73].

page 111

The semantic translation offered by the author of these lines is as follows: "O you sons of Adam! As befits you, dress yourselves, making every prayer." It should be made clear that although the word zpna means" adornment, " according to the authoritative Tafsirs, it refers to clothing, 5 and the purpose of this appeal to believers is to ensure that they perform their rites of prayer and walk around the Kaaba in a proper, decent way, and not half-naked or even completely naked. as it often happened. The verb 'ahaza does not mean here" to take "in its specific meaning, but acts as a semi-auxiliary verb, connecting the periphrasis "sons of Adam", i.e. "people", with the word"raiment". The word masjid does not mean "mosque" here, but is used in its earlier meaning - "place where worship is performed". Let me also note that Sura 7, from which this phrase is taken, is Meccan, and the first mosque was built in the village of Kuba, not far from Medina, only after the Prophet Muhammad left Mecca, heading for Yasrib (the former name of Medina) [see: Barthold, 1992, p. 109; p. 160].

Naturally, the quality of the translation of the Holy Scripture depends on how suitable it is for quoting. After all, the quoted fragment must be adequate to the original in meaning and style. I believe that a literal translation cannot be used for citation purposes in principle. However, Krachkovsky's translation is widely cited by many scholars and politicians who do not know Arabic and blindly trust the printed word. Thus, the beginning of ayat (47: 4) - fa - 'iza laki-tumu-llazina kafaru fa-d-darba r-rikabi hatta' iza ' askhantumuhum fa-shuddu l-wasaka-D. E. Yeremeyev and T. S. Saidbayev quote in their works [Yeremeyev, 1990, p. 44; Saidbayev, 1997, p. 98] 6 translated by I. Yu. Krachkovsky: "And when you meet those who disbelieve, then-a blow on the neck with a sword; and when you make a great slaughter of them, then strengthen the bonds." This literal translation is inadequate for the original. Here we are not talking about "striking the neck", but, according to the Tafsir "Jalalein" and the context, "chopping off heads", which means simply "killing enemies". "Chopping off heads" here is a metonymy that indicates one of the types of defeating the enemy, which does not exclude the use of spears, arrows, etc. The phrase shadda-l-vasaka used in translation does not mean "strengthening ties", but " binding (enemies)", i.e., according to the context and tafsirs, - "their capture."

I suggest the following translation of this phrase: "And if you come together with those who disbelieve in God, then cut off their heads until you have overcome them, and then bind them tightly. ... And either show them mercy or demand a ransom from them, [and so on] until the war lays down its burden..." A note to the translation of the Ayat explains that" strong binding "metonymically means "captivity", and "mercy" - "release to freedom without ransom".

Special attention should be paid to the distortions that the literal translation of phrases that are unmotivated in relation to the target language inevitably leads to .7 For example, the phrase takta 'una sabilan in I. Y. Krachkovsky is translated literally: "cut off the path" (29: 29), while its dictionary meaning is: "engage in robbery" [see: Baranov, 1984, p.647]. In this case, according to the context and Tafsir, we can talk about the attack of Sodomites on travelers in order to commit lewd acts with them.

5 This is also the opinion of the author of the "new translation" of the Qur'an into English, M. A. S. Abdel Halim. He comments: "Lit.:' You put on your jewelry', but it is clear that this is clothing, not jewelry; cf. 7: 26 [The Qur'an, 2004, p. 96].

6 See Ushakov, 1992, p. 183.

7 On the ways of translating Quranic phraseological expressions depending on their interlanguage motivation / unmotivation, see: [Ushakov, 1988, pp. 109-116].

page 112

Below I will give a number of examples of translations of ayats (or their fragments) containing idiomatic phrases made by I. Y. Krachkovsky using the literal translation method, and the translation of the same ayats made by the semantic translation method of the author of these lines.

Translations by I. Y. Krachkovsky

Translations by V. D. Ushakov

O you who believe! Beware of many thoughts! For some thoughts are sin; and do not hunt them down, and let not some of you revile others behind their back. Will any of you want to eat your brother's meat when he is dead? You were disgusted... (49: 12). Then they turned over on their heads again... (21: 65). He knows the changeability of the eyes and what the breast conceals (40: 19). So no! When it comes to the collarbone, and they say who is the exorcist, and he thinks that this is separation, and the shin comes together with the shin , it will fit to your Lord in that day (75:26-29).

O you who believe in God! You try to avoid speculations, Because some of the speculations are truly sinful. And don't follow each other secretly. And let some of them not speak ill of others behind their backs. And will any of you want to defame your brother when he is dead?.. It would be disgusting to you... (49: 12). Then [however] they returned to disbelief again ... (21: 65). (Translation of the idiom from tafsir and dictionaries.) [the Lord] recognizes the deception in their eyes and what [their] hearts hide (40: 19). When [his soul] reaches the collarbone, they will ask [those who will be near him]: "And who will give him healing?" Then he will understand that separation is coming, and the punishments of this world and the torments of hell [on this day] will come together (75; 26-29). (Interpolations based on tafsirs and context.)

I note that in the notes to the translation of the above and other verses containing idiomatic expressions made by the author of these lines, it is explained that the original used an unmotivated phraseological unit, the literal translation of which would lead to complete nonsense.

If the method of literal translation, which led to a number of drawbacks 10 in the work of I. Y. Krachkovsky, is explained by the incompleteness of the translation, then the widely advertised and replicated translation of V. M. Porokhova cannot even be subject to serious scientific criticism, since it was carried out "by a person who does not know Arabic and does not have elementary special training... [her translation] is a synthesis of highly successful management and extremely illiterate implementation of a complex scientific task" [Rezvan, 2001, p. 449].

We should pay tribute to the translator's attempt to give her translation a poetic form in order to "bring a slightly greater emotional and stylistic approximation to the original than the traditional academic publication" [Koran, 1997, p. 12]. In part, she managed to achieve this goal and give many fragments of her translation a sublime, solemn sound. However, unfortunately, in the translation of V. M. Porokhova, successfully translated ayats often coexist with ayats translated either incorrectly or by means that do not correspond to the norms of the Russian language. Moreover, some errors and inaccuracies are quite serious. Thus, Ayat 3: 127 was translated by V. M. Porokhova: "What can He (i.e. God ) do (from the bodies of infidels)11 / Liu-

8 For this and other unmotivated phrases, see [Ushakov, 1994, pp. 144-150].

9 Bible translators also encountered problems of literalism, such as cases where "the darkness of translation in some places completely obscured the meaning of the holy books." At the same time, "the excuses usually presented that an obscure text can be clarified through interpretation are untenable" [Rizhsky, 1978, p.177].

10 An analysis of some shortcomings of the translation of I. Y. Krachkovsky is contained in the work: [Aliev, 2004, pp. 122-123].

11 V. M. Porokhova's interpolation is not based on anything.

page 113

I will cut off a limb, bring them down, and force them to leave in disgrace and frustration." This is not about "cutting off limbs", but about a plan to fight the polytheists (disbelievers). Translation of the author of these lines: "[The Lord will help you]12 to cut off a part of the Gentiles or to strike such a blow at them that they will turn back, losing hope."..

A gross mistake was also made in the translation of ayat (3: 165): 'awa lamma' asabatkum musibatun kad 'asabtum mislaikha kultum' anna haza kul huwa min 'indi' anfusikum 'in-na llaha' ala kulli shai 'in kadirun -" So what! When grief first came upon you (and you inflicted a double calamity on them), did you not ask: "Where did this calamity come from?" Say: "From yourselves!" V. M. Porokhova reports in note 190 to this ayat:" They defeated the infidels 13 in the battles of Badr and Uhud " (Koran, 1997, p. 4). 649]. The correct translation of Ayat 3: 165 is as follows: "When a misfortune befell you, after you had defeated [your enemies] twice as much as your own misfortune, you asked:' What does this mean?' Say to them: "It was all up to you." The Ayat does not refer to the two victories of the companions of Muhammad over the pagans, but rather to the fact that the victory of the Muslims at Badr (624) is much more important than their defeat by the polytheists at Uhud (625), which was the fault of the Muslim soldiers themselves. In an effort to capture the loot, they were distracted from the implementation of the plan of military operations [see: Bolshakov, 1991, p. 36, 247].

Below I will compare with the translations of the author of these lines the translations of V. M. Porokhova, which, in my opinion, do not correspond to the norms of the Russian language and the style, and sometimes the content of the translated text:

Translated by V. M. Porokhova

Translated by V. D. Ushakov

And the wives who have received a divorce, let them wait for the time of the three regula (2: 228).

The divorced wives themselves must wait for three periods of regula-tion (2:228).

. And when their appointed time is over, there will be no sin on you from the wisdom with which they choose to dispose... (2: 234).

... But when this term is ended, then you will have no sin, if they dispose of themselves in accordance with the established rules (2:234).

This is my staff, " he said. "I lean on it and use it to knock down fodder for the cattle. In it, I will also benefit from other works (20: 18).

He answered, "This is my staff, and I lean on it, and with it I knock down the leaves of the trees to feed my sheep, and it has other purposes" (20: 18).

But he who does good and believes in the Lord will not be afraid of wrongdoing or the oppression of contentment (20:112).

But whoever does good deeds and believes in God, he is not afraid of oppression and hardships" (20:112).

A number of similar examples can be continued. Many "misunderstandings" can also be found in the "Comments" to the translation by V. M. Porokhova. In them, the noun at-taqwa is declared a verb [Qur'an, 1977, p. 631], many Arabic words are incorrectly transliterated; feminine nouns (Hijra, Torah) turn into masculine words, for example, "The Law of Torah" [Qur'an, 1977, p. 638], "Medinans before the Hijra" [Qur'an, 1977, p. 648]. A critical analysis of the so-called translation of meanings could take dozens of pages. From a brief analysis of the translation of the Muslim woman V. M. Porokhova, it also follows that it is not belonging to a particular religion, but

12 Interpolation - in order to establish a connection with the previous, 126th ayat.

13 Actually, not "infidels", but "unbelievers", "Gentiles", however, apparently, the translator does not pay attention to the difference between "infidels" (Gentiles) and "unbelievers".

* This is exactly what we read in many places of V. M. Porokhova's translation - "to assure", not "to believe" (in God, the Lord). There is no typo here, but there is an incorrect use of lexical units of the Russian language.

page 114

the translator's high competence, hard work and self-demanding attitude can ensure success in fulfilling the sacred mission of translating the Qur'an at a decent level.

Above were the "fruits" of insufficient qualifications of the editor-in-chief of the translation of the Koran made by V. M. Porokhova, Dr. Muhammad Said Al-Roshda and the staff of the Al-Furqan publishing house. I would also like to draw attention to the careless attitude of the Umma Publishing House, which published a posthumous translation of the Koran by B. Ya. Shidfar [Koran, 2004], an authoritative expert in the field of medieval literature and the Koran. So, upon the most cursory reading of this edition, I found that in Surah 16 "Bees", starting from Ayat 89 to the end of Surah, the numbering is shifted by five units. Thus, in this edition, there are 123 ayats in Surah 16, whereas there are actually 128 ayats. A similar shift in the numbering of ayats, although only by one unit, occurs in Surah 10 "Yunus", starting from Ayat 37 and ending with Surah 37. Accordingly, there are 108 ayats in it, although in reality there are 109. This translation, apparently, has not been properly edited. It is unlikely that B. Y. Shidfar could have allowed such a phrase as" make a barrier", whereas it would have been correct:" build "or" erect " a barrier.

This article should also focus on the problem of the translator's" careful " handling of terms. It is obvious that an incorrect translation of them can and does lead to a serious distortion of the conceptual foundations of the Holy Book of Muslims. So, the main dogma that runs like a red thread through the entire text of the Koran is the dogma of Monotheism. But even this position is distorted and, one might say, reduced to nothing due to the fact that in recent translations of the Koran (possibly starting with the translation of I. Y. Krachkovsky)14 into Russian and in some translations into Western languages 15 the Arabic word ' Allah (u) "God" is left without translation, and this gives the impression that Muslims worship some deity of their own, different from the God of Jews and Christians. Thus, these translators, willingly or unwittingly, introduce into the minds of readers the idea of the existence of two gods (Allah and God), i.e., the idea of two gods, which is explicitly condemned in the Qur'an: "And God said:' You do not choose two gods for yourselves! Indeed, He is One God. Of Me, [O people], do you fear! '" (Quran 16: 51). The suggestion of a special Muslim God also contradicts Ayat 29: 46, which states that all those who believe in the One God worship the same God: "... And say [to the People of the Book]16 : 'We believe in what has been revealed to us, and also in what has been revealed to you. Our God and your God are one and the same, and we surrender ourselves to Him.'"

It is noteworthy that both Christian Arabs in churches and Muslim Arabs in mosques address God in the same way-"God", i.e. in Arabic 'Allah(u), because they all have the same God. In this regard, it should be emphasized that the person who

14 It should be borne in mind that I. Y. Krachkovsky performed his translation during the period of militant atheism, and the use of the word "God" in the translation text could lead to disastrous consequences for the translator. Therefore, I. Y. Krachkovsky declared the Koran a "literary monument", he could not consider it as a sacred work, as Holy Scripture, and, perhaps, in order to give it an "oriental flavor", he left the Arabic word 'Allahu - "God" without translation - Allah.

15 For example, the word 'Allahu' is transliterated in the English translation of the Qur'an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali [The Holy Qur'an, 1922], in a joint translation by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, published in Saudi Arabia in nine volumes [The Noble Qur'an, b. g.], as well as in a French translation published in Medina [Le Saint Coran..., 1990]. However, in the English translations-T. B. Irving [The Qur'an (The Noble Reading), 1998], published in Tehran, and in M. A. S. Abdel Halim, published in New York [The Qur'an, 2004], as well as in the German translation of the Qur'an by Adel Theodor Khoury [Der Qur'an, 2004], the Arabic word 'Allah' is translated God and Gott, respectively.

16 " You "refers to Muslims; the phrase" People of the Book " refers to Jews and Christians.

page 115

opposes God and Allah, can not be considered a monotheist and, accordingly, a Muslim.

Leaving the word 'Allaahu ("God") untranslated is also contrary to the tradition of translating the holy monotheistic scriptures into other languages. The Hebrew elohim and the Greek theos are translated, respectively: God, God, Dieu, Gott, etc. The word God was translated into Russian, English and French by the translators of the Koran in the 19th century: G. S. Sablukov, D. N. Boguslavsky, E. H. Palmer, A. B. Biberstein-Kazimirsky. By the way, I will note that in the Bible, translated into Arabic, God is not Elohim, but 'to Allah, and this is quite natural. One can imagine what would happen if the Bible were translated by people like the modern" innovators " - translators of the Koran. They would leave the word "God" untranslated, and we would read: "And Elohim spake, saying..." or "Your Theos Theos one," etc.

Transliteration of the word 'Allah', i.e. its transmission through 'Allah', is objectively aimed not only at undermining the dogma of monotheism, but also at breeding people of different monotheistic religions, at alienating them from each other, at introducing discord and contradictions between them, at putting forward the idea that each monotheistic community has its own God, and one god can be better than another, and that Muslims will supposedly be protected by their God - Allah, not the one that Christians have, etc.

I would like to note that the idea of preference, and even more so the superiority of one religion over another, is extremely harmful for relations between people of different faiths and cultures and is fraught with dangerous conflicts and crises. To be fair, the Qur'an identifies Islam as a strictly monotheistic religion, superior to "any other faith."" (9:33; 48:28). Islam is given its due as a true (al-haqq), right (al-qayyim) faith. And this is natural, since every Holy Scripture, every believer, with all their respect for other religions, cannot fail to honor their Faith first of all. The Qur'an is considered by Muslims as the last Word of God, on the one hand confirming (musaddiq) the monotheistic Scriptures previously revealed by God, and on the other hand, as stated in this Book, it is intended to correct certain "deviations" from monotheism, or even "distortions" of it contained in these Scriptures. However, this does not mean, according to the Qur'an, that the "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians) are enemies of Muslims. People who oppose one religion to another do not know or forget about the Qur'anic dogma, which states:: "And if God had willed, He would have made you one community. [But He divided you] so that you might be put to the test by what He gave you. So strive to get ahead of each other in doing good deeds... " (Quran 5: 48).

Indeed, the uniformity of religions, cultures, and civilizations would be disastrous for humanity. It would lead to a gray uniformity in art, in painting, in music, in architecture, even in clothing, etc. To get to know each other, to exchange knowledge and cultural values with each other - this is what the Qur'an calls for: "O people, verily, We have produced you from man and wife." We have raised up nations and kindreds from among you, that you may know one another; for We honor the most of you with God, who is more pious... "(49: 13). Therefore, the attempt to oppose Allah as a special Muslim god to the One God contradicts the fundamental dogma of the three monotheistic religions about monotheism and can bring nothing but harm to believers.

Unfortunately, human pride, which is strongly condemned both in the Bible and in the Koran, leads people to forget that the Supreme Judge is God, that it is He and only He who can resolve human differences and contradictions on matters of Faith. For example, in the Qur'an, in Ayat 2: 113, in connection with the controversy over re-

17 That is, from Adam and Eve.

page 116

It is written to Lygia between Jews and Christians: "And [only God will judge] the differences between them on the Day of Judgment" (see also: Qur'an, 10:93; 16:124; 32:25 etc.). However, people who are filled with arrogance take the liberty of judging and even punishing their brothers - the "sons of Adam"-with the loss of life just because they think about something or imagine something different from themselves. And the most monstrous thing is that when they commit the gravest sin of murder, many of them believe that they are doing a God-pleasing deed.

The Qur'an also consistently holds the idea that the new religion, Islam, honors the same prophets who are exalted in both the Old and New Testaments. Their names are mentioned many times in the Qur'an. In Western languages, they are translated in accordance with the norms of these languages - that is, as they are called in the Bible. For example: English and French Abraham; English Moses, French Moise, etc. [for more details, see Ushakov 19966, p. 74]. And in this case, it is clear that the Qur'an refers specifically to the Biblical prophets, who at the same time are also Quranic, Muslim prophets. Modern translators of the Koran into Russian are also original here. They convey the names of these prophets not in accordance with the norms of the Russian language, but in their Arabic form (Ibrahim, Musa, Davud, etc.), thereby creating the impression that we are talking about different characters, about different prophets (Biblical and Quranic), and thus performing the "super task" of breeding with each other people who worship the same God and honor the same prophets.

However, not only translators "contribute" to separating people of different monotheistic confessions from each other, but also some cult ministers who influence them, who strive to separate "their" faith , to present it as a different, peculiar religion that surpasses all other beliefs, distinguishing it from a number of others as more preferable, etc. This gives the impression that the representatives of the three confessions mentioned above have different ancestors, as if they do not overlap at the historical and ideological levels. However, all these religions go back to the same prophet - Abraham, and therefore are called Abrahamic.

It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that Christianity, which spread after Judaism, honors many Old Testament precepts, first of all the postulate of monotheism, pays homage to the Old Testament prophets, extracts from the books of the Old Testament are read in Christian temples, etc.Accordingly, the Koran honors the Torah and the Gospel and the Biblical prophets.

However, for obvious reasons, earlier religions cannot express in their Writings their attitudes to later denominations. Therefore, figuratively speaking, the Bible cannot face the Koran - it cannot be changed or supplemented. However, what is common and essential that unites the three monotheistic religions (the idea of monotheism, moral and ethical norms and regulations, their humanistic nature, etc.), allows us to hope that representatives of Judaism and Christianity-clerics and believers themselves - will consider Islam as a great monotheistic religion, the Koran as a Holy Book, and the Prophet Muhammad as the Messenger of God. By the way," de facto", i.e. in some secular studies and speeches, Muhammad is paid tribute, and he is called even the greatest of the people of the past two millennia [Hart, 1999, p. 18]. And many non-Muslims are fully aware that Islam is a world religion, and the Koran is a Sacred Scripture of global significance.

And it is precisely for a deeper and more correct understanding of the Qur'an that its translation is necessary, which adequately conveys not only its external content, but also its deep conceptual and ideological essence, as well as its esoteric side (for the esoteric in the Qur'an and in the Bible, see: [Ushakov, 1999, pp. 47-52]).

Many people - both translators and Muslims themselves-often misunderstand the term kafir (plural kuffar, kafiruna), which means in the Qur'an as

page 117

As a rule, polytheists, non - believers (in the One God) - sometimes those who stray from the path of faith [see: Saidbaev, 1997, p. 94-104]. In tafsirs, the Qafiruna is mostly interpreted through mushrikun - "polytheists","pagans". Nevertheless, translations of the Qur'an into Russian often confuse the two concepts: "unbeliever", i.e. "does not recognize the existence of God (the One. - V. U.), denies religion" [Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1999, p. 401], and "infidel" - "professing a different faith" [Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1999, p. 401], i.e. "non-believer" - a person of a different faith, a different religion... [Ozhegov and Shvedova, 1999, p. 248]. The" Gentiles "in the Qur'an are usually Jews and Christians, who are called" people/possessors of the Book", in Arabic-'ahlul - kitab. The latter can be called kafiruna or Kuffar only in the case of their apostasy (for example, when the people of Moses worshipped the golden calf) or in the case of their gross violation of religious regulations (embezzlement of foreign property, giving money on loan, etc.P., - S. M. ayaty 4:160, 161, etc.). Such sinners and heretics can also be Muslims who violate religious precepts, for example, commit murder "without the right to do so "(see Ayats 6:151; 17:33, etc.) 18.

In conclusion, I would like to note that the latest translations of the Koran into Russian mentioned above (by M.-N. O. Osmanova, B. Ya. Shidfar, E. R. Kulieva, etc.) 19 in many respects have indisputable advantages : they are more accurate and more accessible to readers. However, they do not fully reflect the expressiveness of the Qur'an's style and do not have, at least to some extent, the impact that the original Qur'an has on people. In other words, the key to the literary translation of this Book has not yet been found.

Accordingly, the task arises of performing a scientific and at the same time highly artistic translation of the Qur'an, which would clothe oral speech in a literary form, as well as reflect the sacredness, spirituality and sublime style of the original. At the same time, a highly artistic translation can never imply a reduction in the requirements for its accuracy and adequacy. However, at the same time, it should be emphasized once again that the desire for accuracy of translation should not lead to simplification, template, or the same literalism discussed above 20 .

list of literature

Aliev Arif. The Koran in Russia. A source of knowledge or an object of myth-making? Moscow: Druzhba narodov Publ., 2004.

Akhmanova O. S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. 2nd ed., stereotypes, Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, 1969.

Baranov Kh. K. Arabic-Russian dictionary. 6-e Publishing house, stereotypn. Moscow: Russian Language, 1984.

18 I note that in English translations of the Qur'an, kafir is translated as disbeliever - "unbeliever" or pagan - " pagan "( but in no case as heterodox "non-believer"); 'allazina kyafaru-as those who reject Faith - "those who reject Faith". In French, kuffar and 'allazina kafaru are translated as mecreants - "unbelievers", and in German-Polytheisten, die nicht glauben - "polytheists", "those who do not believe" (i.e., those who do not believe in the One God). In translations into Russian, "non-believers" often turn into "infidels". It is interesting that in the translation of I. Y. Krachkovsky, the word al-qafiruna, which is used twice in the same ayat (4: 151) in relation to the same people, is once translated correctly by the word "disbelievers", and another time - "infidels", which is incorrect, since it refers to of "those who rejected God and His Messengers" (4: 150), and of "those who disbelieve" (4:151). Similarly, other translators of the Koran into Russian identify "non-believers" with "infidels" and "gentiles".

19 For more information about the latest translations of the Koran into Russian, see: [Aliev, 2004, pp. 124-126]

20 On the need for a "new scientific-commented translation of the Qur'an that adequately conveys the text of Monotheistic Revelation", see: [Mikhailov, 2004, p. 14].

page 118

Bartold V. V. Orientirovka pervykh moslemskikh mechetey [Orientation of the first Muslim mosques].

Bolshakov O. G. Badr / / Islam. Encyclopedia / Edited by S. M. Prozorov, Moscow: GRVL, 1991.

Bolshakov O. G. Masjid / / Islam. Encyclopedia / Edited by S. M. Prozorov, Moscow: GRVL, 1991.

Bolshakov O. G. Uhud / / Islam. Encyclopedia / Edited by S. M. Prozorov, Moscow: GRVL, 1991.

Gryaznevich P. Preface to the 2nd ed. / / Koran / Translated and commented by I. Yu. Krachkovsky. Moscow: GRVL, 1986.

Eremeev D. E. Islam. Obraz zhizni i stil myshleniya [Lifestyle and Style of Thinking], Moscow: Politicheskaya literatura Publ., 1990.

Kiktev M. S. Teoriya "inimitable" Korana ('i'jaz) v arabyskoi filologii X-XI vvakh [Theory of the "Inimitable" Koran ('i'jaz) in Arabic Philology of the X-XI centuries]: Abstracts of reports and scientific reports. Yerevan, 1985.

Koran / Translated and commented by I. Y. Krachkovsky, Ed. 2-E. M.: GRVL, 1986.

The Koran. Translation of meanings and comments. Valeria Porokhova, 3rd Augmented and revised Edition / Editor-in-chief Dr. Muhammad Said Al Roshd, Moscow: Al-Furqan, 1997.

The Koran. Translation of Meanings and comments by E. R. Kuliyev, Moscow: Umma, 2004.

The Koran. Semantic translation of Professor B. Ya. Shidfar, Moscow: Umma, 2004.

Makhlouf ' Abdu-r-Ra'uf. Al-Baqillani and his book on the inimitable Qur'an. Beirut, 1978 (in Arabic).

Melchuk I. A. Experience of linguistic models "sense" - "text". Semantics and syntax, Moscow: GRVL Publ., 1974.

Mikhailov Yuri. Incomprehensible Koran / / Politicheskiy klass. 2005. N 2.

Murshed S. I. Speech at the "round table": "We need an Islamic discourse" / / Asia and Africa Today. 2005. N 2.

Ozhegov S. I. and Shvedova N. Yu. Tolkovyi slovar russkogo yazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Moscow: Azbukovnik, 1999.

Pushkin A. S. On Milton and Chateaubriand's translation of Paradise Lost // Translation-a means of mutual understanding of peoples: art. Publicistics I Comp. by A. A. Klyshko, Moscow: Progress Publ., 1987.

Rezvan E. A. 'I'jaz al-Qur'an / / Islam. Encyclopedic Dictionary I, edited by S. M. Prozorov, Moscow: GRVL, 1991.

Rezvan E. A. Koran i ego mir [The Koran and its World] / Ed. by V. D. Ushakov. SPb.: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2001.

Rizhsky M. I. History of Bible translations in Russia. Novosibirsk, 1978.

Saidbaev T. "Infidels" ("gyaury") Qur'an: who are they? // Koran in Russia (based on the materials of the "round table" "The Holy Koran in Russia: spiritual heritage and historical destinies", Moscow, 1997. Appendix to the journal "Ethnosphere". 1997.

Suyuti Jalal ad-Din. Excellence in the Qur'anic sciences. Vol.]: Teaching on the interpretation of the Koran / Introductory article, translated and commented by D. V. Frolov Moscow: Muravey, 2000.

Ushakov V. D. Frazeobrazovaniya v Korane i sposoby ikh perevoda na russkogo yazyka [Phraseological formations in the Koran and ways of their translation into Russian]. 1988. N 1.

Ushakov V. D. Review by D. E. Eremeev. Islam. Lifestyle and thinking style... //East (Oriens). 1992. N4.

Ushakov V. D. Opyt interpretatsii obraznoy osnovy nekotorykh koranicheskikh idiomatizmov [Experience of interpretation of the figurative basis of some Quranic idioms]. 1994. N 2.

Ushakov V. D. Phraseology of the Koran (Experience of comparing phraseological expressions of the Koran and the Arabic classical language). Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura, 1996.

Ushakov V. D. Nekotorye aspekty perevoda Korana na russkogo yazyka [Some aspects of translating the Koran into Russian]. 1996. N9.

Ushakov V. D. Nekotorye aspekty perevoda Korana na russkogo yazyka [Some aspects of translating the Koran into Russian]. 1996. N 10.

Ushakov V. D. Reflections on the Qur'anic and Biblical texts//Asia and Africa today. 1997'. N 12.

Ushakov V. D. Ob esotericheskom v Korane i v Biblii [About the esoteric in the Koran and in the Bible]. 1999. N 9.

Frolov D. V. Jalal ad-Din al-Suyuti. Excellence in the Qur'anic sciences. Chapter on the inimitable nature of the Koran (XV century) / / Peoples of Asia and Africa. 1987. N 2.

Khart M. H. The Prophet Muhammad is the first among the 100 most outstanding personalities in the history of mankind. 1999. N 12(61); 2005. N 2.

The Holy Quran. Englisch Translation of the Meanings and Commentary. Al-Madina ' al-Munawuara (Medina), 1992.

page 119

Der Koran. Arabisch-Deutsch / Ubersetzt und Kommentiert von Adel Theodor Khoury, 2004.

The Noble Qur'an, translated by d-r Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and d-r Muhammad Muhsin Khan. -Darussalam. Publishers and Distribution, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, [б.г.]

The Qur'an (The Noble Reading). The First American English Translation. New Iranian Edition by T.B. Irving (Al-Hajj Ta 'Mm 'Ali. Tehran, Iran, 1998.

The Qur'an. A new translation by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., N.Y., 2004.

Le Saint Coran et la traduction en langue frangaise du sens de ses versets. Al-Madina ' al-Munawuara, 1990.

Permanent link to this publication: