International Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 2, No.

3; September 2015

The Untranslatability of Islamic and Arabic Cultural Terms

AnfalA. Alhumaid
Department of English
Northern Border University
Saudi Arabia

Abstract
This article deals with the problem of translating the untranslatable in the language pair of Arabic and English.
The opening sections consider the problem and its main features. Further sections analyze the role of religion and
culture in untranslatability; lexical units, representing different aspects of culture, the ways and problems of their
conveyance from Arabic into English. The ways and problems of rendering the meaning of Islam-specific terms
have multiple examples. The final section summarizes the key trends, problems, and controversies analyzed in the
article. The article reflects the opinions and vision of prominent linguists and journalists.
Keywords: translate, target, source, language, decipher, Arabic, English
Due to the inborn language differences, linguistic pluralism, which is the recognition and support of multiple
languages within one society, keeps people from establishing free and unrestrained communication between each
other. It is not what causes differences is what stirs interest, but how these can be overcome. This is where
interpreters and translators facilitate communication between people by rendering the main ideas communicated
in the source language, that is to say, deciphering the linguistically codified messages to make them
understandable by the target language speakers. To this end, they need to neutralize the vagueness of linguistic
units representing slang, idioms, and neologisms, to name a few, that constitute different cultural layers of the
source language. The lack of equivalents in the target language necessitates the use of tools like descriptive
translation, compensation, transcription, and calque. It is inevitable that translators have to lose the textually and
culturally relevant features of the term and use compensatory translation methods that allow conveying the main
semantic value of the expression in different words. The process of rendering such units grows particularly
difficult in pairs, representing languages that stem from different language families. More than that, different
lifestyles, religions, and cultural traditions have contributed to the problems translators have in interpreting
culture-specific terms. Both Arabic and English are in marked contrast to each other, which finds its reflection in
linguistic units that make the problem of translating the untranslatable.
Doctor Ahmad Nakhallah (n.d.) noted that translation served the purpose of the means of bilingual cross-cultural
communication among people. Technology, media expansion, globalizations, booming international trade, and
linguistic minorities’ recognition have all contributed to the development of translation. However, in order to
connect different cultures and their representatives, translators have to overcome a set of difficulties, of which
such culture-related issue as untranslatability is one of the most difficult. Kashgary (2011) stated that
untranslatability might emerge at the word level owing to the lack of equivalence between the source and target
languages at this particular level. In order for translators to bypass such untranslatability, they need to depart from
equivalence at the word level and replace words that are impossible to translate via traditional means with
nonequivalent units, which allow accomplishing the acceptable measure of equivalence at the text level. There are
nonequivalent problems in Arabic and English that become noticeable by translation since both languages are the
products of different cultures (Kashgary, 2011). Guessabi (2013) asserted that culture and language have a
complex homologous relationship. The connection between culture and language is so intricate since they have
developed together and influenced each other. Philosophy Doctor Adel Bahameed (2014) noted that both
languages pertained to different language families and settings. English is a member of the Indo-European family
of languages while Arabic is a part of the Semitic family. Both languages demonstrate different word orders, with
Arabic being a synthetic and English analytical language, which makes no use of inflectional morphemes to
express the relationship between words. Apart from differences in versification and phonology, both English and
Arabic are separated by a large geographical distance, which eventually led to cultural distinctions.
99
ISSN 2374-8850 (Print), 2374-8869 (Online) © Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijllnet.com

According to Guessabi (2013), the problem arises whenever cross-culture contacts occur between a message
producer and recipient who represent different cultures. Bahameed (2014) suggested that untranslatability
displayed the area where no intercultural equivalence between languages exists. Modern communication
technologies and globalization close the cultural gap between nations (Bahameed, 2014). However, there are other
ways of culture-specific terms becoming widespread in target languages. For example, the word” jihad” has a
highly negative connotation, or cultural association. While it has come to be recognizable due to media coverage
of terrorist acts described in the context of jihad, its meaning is rendered through description. In Arabic, it is a
noun that means struggle or resisting by itself, this is the literal meaning, but in Islam, it has two meanings. The
first meaning, which is commonly recognized as the true meaning of jihad, is the strive to uphold Allah’s
commandments and condemn all Allah’s prohibitions. Another meaning is to fight a holy war against infidels as a
religious duty. It is fair to say that when trying to interpret the word jihad, finding an exact equivalent is not the
quintessential problem, but being able to capture the true nature and spirit of this widely misunderstood concept.
However, according to Bahameed (2014), the ones who destroy intercultural barriers are translators, offering
understandable and meaningful target language versions of the source texts. The Arab translators may come
across nonequivalent lexical units in Arabic since the concepts they concern do not exist in the English culture.
These are usually culture-related units.
Larson (1998) noted that the interpreter’s task becomes more difficult when the concept to be translated refers
something unknown in the receptor culture because the interpreter will not only look for an appropriate way to
refer to something which is already part of the experience of the receptor language audience, but he will also look
for a way to express a concept which is new to the speakers of the language. Religious terms are of particular
interest since they produce a number of translation difficulties. Al-Shawi and Mahdi (2012) stated that Islamic
religion and culture dominated the Arab world, as distinct from Christian religion and culture that prevail in the
English-speaking world. Hence, religious and cultural principles influence different linguistic items in both
languages. Kashgary (2011) noted that religious terms were chiefly culture-specific with zero dictionary
equivalents. Researchers taking part in a symposium dedicated to the translation of the meaning of the Holy
Quran have come up with the idea of how to render Islamic concepts and terms. Ghazala suggested applying six
kinds of equivalents for conveying the meaning of Islamic terms, such as cultural, functional, religious,
explanatory, connotative, and referential equivalents. The most precise way of translation was found to be the use
of loan words along with a short descriptive explanation. To quote an example, the word “zakat” can be rendered
by using words like “alms” or “charity,” as has been done by plenty of Quran translators. Still, the loan translation
fails to convey the complete meaning of the concept put into it by Muslims. To achieve adequacy, it important
that the explanation of the conditions of the concept be added as well. Qualifiers like “ordained” or “obligatory”
can render the maximum meaning if added to the English equivalent. Thus, “zakat” means ordained or obligatory
charity. Ghazala (2002) noted that that was an example of the approach called an explanatory equivalent (as cited
in Kashgary, 2011).
Likewise, the words “haram” and “halal” have word-for-word equivalents like “prohibited” and “permissible.”
Still, these Arabic words have specific religious and social meanings, with English equivalents failing to render
the extra levels. The point is that both words denote a variety of customs and practices that are allowed or
prohibited, as per Islamic law. What is more, they make reference to laws that govern drinks and food. It is
insufficient to provide their dictionary equivalents only. Loan translation coupled with a brief description or
explanation is the best option, although the context also plays an important role in determining nature of
translation approaches required (Kashgary, 2011). For example, the word “haram” refers to an act prohibited by
Allah. In the banking sector, it may refer to business activities that are regarded as unacceptable, which forbids
issuing loans to customers who want to deal with pork, alcohol, gambling, and other activities that are
noncompliant with Sharia, the code of moral and religious norms. This particular context allows providing an
accurate description of the word “haram” added to its dictionary equivalent. Kashgary (2011) claimed that terms
denoting Arabic social life, food, and customs were related to specific aspects of Arab religion, values, and
culture. There is no way to translate them by means of English equivalents, if any. For instance, the word “Al
Irdh” is semantically complex, denoting a wide range of concepts that have bearing on men’s honor in protecting
female family members, people they bear responsibility for, and possessions. Since there is no such concept in the
English culture, a translator has nothing else to do but lose the expressive meaning of the term by using such
neutral word as “dignity” and describing its associative judgments and emotions.

100
International Journal of Language and Linguistics Vol. 2, No. 3; September 2015

Difficulty of conveying the meaning of such terms stems from the need to be knowledgeable of Arabic culture
along with its customs and social values. The dictionary equivalents of such concepts contain long explanations as
well as being devoid of expressiveness. The translator may try to explain words by altering the so-called super
ordinate words and revealing their meanings through unrelated words, which is a technique called paraphrase. To
put an example, “sabe’e” is the super ordinate word that has the meaning of “the seventh day”, or the celebration
of a newborn child. Thus, a translator provides the description of the occasion and traditions that accompany it.
Likewise, the word “mahram” is conveyed through the modification of the super ordinate word “someone” as
male chaperon as well as adding description to reveal the connotative meaning of the concept in the Islamic
culture. Similarly difficult and problematic is finding the equivalents of local cuisines. “Fool and tames” is an
Arabic phrase that poses particular interest, denoting a highly popular dish with a local flavor here in Saudi
Arabia. Translators may provide its English equivalent “beans and bread”; still, such approach fails to grasp the
local flavor of the dish and show its remarkable traits like the time of eating, the kind of people who eat it, cost,
and the supposed impact that it has on human mental processes (Kashgary, 2011).
According to Kashgary(2011), semantically complex Arabic words that refer to religious concepts, processes, and
social traditions are hard to translate without specific transformations, which may be problematic. Semantically
complex notions referred to by such words have no equivalents whatsoever in English. The word “taharah” is
polysemantic, denoting cleanness, purity, cleansing, virtuousness, chastity, righteousness, decency, and
abstinence, to name a few. Despite its complexity, the notion refers to the process of ablution, which is washing
with water prior to saying prayers. Beyond that, the concept may imply cleansing the soul and heart and cleaning
the clothes and body an individual is wearing. To quote more examples, “Al Ghusul” has the English equivalent
of showering or washing. Based on Arabic customs, it means a symbolic washing of the whole body after a sexual
intercourse. “Al Tayamum” has the meaning of washing with earth dust. The meaning remains perplexing unless
a brief description is provided. The notion implies a symbolic washing by use of earth dust as a replacement of
water if there is no such at hand. “Al E’tikaf” means prayer in seclusion. A broader explanation suggests it is the
act of retiring into a mosque in order to worship in the last ten-day period of Ramadan. “AkhBirRidha ’ah” is the
concept that implies a milk-brother or sister. A descriptive translation will clarify the culture-specific meaning of
the expression by revealing the notion refers to individuals who accomplish the status of sister or brother if the
same mother nursed them. Another example is “Hadi Al Ees”, it is an expression that allows description only. It
means singing for the caravan of camels to get it to accelerate speed (Kashgary, 2011).
Conclusion
Translation is the process of conveying or decoding the meaning of messages from the source into the target
language. Since the languages of a message sender and its recipient correlate with different cultures and linguistic
families, the process of deciphering verbalized human thoughts becomes challenging. This holds particularly true
for languages that stand in a very sharp contrast to each other like Arabic and English. The former is synthetic
while the latter is an analytical language that uses word order, not morphemes to express relationships between
words. One of the biggest problems are religious and cultural-specific terms and notions that have few or no
equivalents in the target language and require the application of compensatory translation techniques like loan or
word-for-word translation usually accompanied by a brief description. In separate cases, context does a lot to
narrow the choice of the expressive means of translation. Even so, the expressive power of words and their
emotional coloring may be lost in the process of translating their meaning. Food terms may denote polysemantic
expressions that describe different properties of food the way English fails to do. While it allows finding a distant
equivalent, such approach still renders only a part of the lexical unit, neutralizing its unique connotation.
Obviously, meaning conveyance forces translators to lose plenty of expressive means. Even if they try to keep
them intact, they still need extensive descriptions to render the whole semantic essence of a lexical unit, which is
the case because of cultural differences that pose the problem of untranslatability. Lexical items that do not even
have approximate equivalents necessitate the use of description only. For example, “Hadi Al Ees” is an
expression that requires description only since there are no close equivalents that could be coupled with extra
explanations. The lexical unit means singing for the caravan of camels to get it to accelerate speed. The example
shows the extent to which culture and lifestyle leave their imprints on Arabic language. Overall, culture along
with its products bring unique, unequaled notions to the receptor language that cause the problem of
untranslatability, or the lack of close equivalents, and require the application of specific translation techniques to
convey the meaning of the lexical units.
101
ISSN 2374-8850 (Print), 2374-8869 (Online) © Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijllnet.com

References
Al-Shawi, M.A., and Mahdi, T.S.T. (2012).Strategies for translating idioms from Arabic into English and vice
versa. AMARABAC, Journal of American Arabic Academy for Sciences and Technology, 3(6).139-147.
Bahameed, A.S. (2014, April 28). Hindrances in Arabic-English intercultural translation. Translation Journal,
12(1).
Guessabi, F. (2013). The cultural problems in translating a novel from Arabic to English language. A case study:
the Algerian novel. Arab World English Journal, 2. 224-232.
Kashgary, A.D. (2011, January). The paradox of translating the untranslatable: equivalence vs. non-equivalence in
translating from Arabic into English. Journal of King Saud University, 23(1), 47-57.
Larson, M. (1998). Meaning-based Translation. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Nakhallah, A.M. (n.d.). Difficulties and problems facing English students at QOU in the translation process from
English to Arabic and their solutions. Al-Quds Open University.

102