The ideology of translators in Quranic translation: lessons learned from Indonesia

Abstract

Albeit research into Qur’an translation has been widely undertaken, little empirical research reports on the ideology of translators, particularly from the translation technique perspective. This research, therefore, aims at exploring the representation of the ideology of Qur’an Translators in Indonesia. The present critical translation case study design used the Qur’an translation produced by The Ministry of Religious Affairs (official) and Muhammad Thalib (unofficial) as the data source. To analyze the data, this research adopted theories from Molina and Albir, Leuven-Zwart, and Nord. The findings indicate that the practice of Qur’an translation in Indonesia was subjective, ideological, and reader-driven. The translation works from the official representative were based on moderate Islamic practices, while the unofficial one was found to contain transnational Islamic ideology. Translators’ ideology can be traced through translation techniques and translators’ backgrounds. This research suggests that the Quranic translation can be undertaken across languages because, in addition to making the text arbitrary, it also has a certain religious ideology in line with the interests and socio-cultural-political background of the translator and the target reader.

Keywords:

• Ideology
• Indonesia
• Qur’an translation
• translation studies
• translation techniques

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

The present article attempts to examine the translator’s ideology in Indonesian Qur’an translation. This is achieved by employing a critical translation case study design. The findings reveal that the practice of Qur’an translation was subjective, ideological, and reader-driven. This is affected by the translator’s background and the use of translation techniques.

1. Introduction

Muslims in the world recognize the Qur’an as a religious, sacred, and holy text, but these values may be degraded by human interpretation. Translating the Qur’an into one’s native language might contain certain ideologies depending on who the translator is, what their socio-religious background is, what their ideologies are, and who the people around them are, such as editors (Munday, 2016), and even the state (Ichwan, 2009). Abdo and Mousa (2019) examined the different religious backgrounds of the translators in rendering Al-Qur’an into English, both from the Muslim Abdel Haleem and the Christian George Sales. The findings showed that translators’ ideology of religion could be adopted to manipulate and give a different intention to the source text. However, other studies demonstrated different findings. Afrouz (2019) proved that four translators’ religious backgrounds, such as “Shia,” “Sunni,” and “neither Shia nor Sunni” Muslim, do not play a pivotal role in selecting specific translation strategies for rendering the source text into English. Other empirical research argued that the attitude and social context of the translators could affect their Qur’an rendering into English (Mohaghegh & Pirnajmuddin, 2013; Mustafa, 2019). Other research conducted by Ichwan () showed that the state’s involvement in rendering Quranic translation plays a pivotal role in creating peace and harmony among religious communities in Indonesia. Therefore, it can be noted that the ideology of religion, attitude, and social context of the translators, as well as the involvement of the state, might affect the translation of the Holy Qur’an into various target languages.

Studies concerning ideology in Quran translation have only looked at the translation ideologies from scanty perspectives. First, some studies are concerned with the translation ideology from the perspective of Quranic studies (Burhani, 2015; Mohaghegh & Pirnajmuddin, 2013). It details how the Quranic translation ideology influences the formation of the particular verse. For instance, the Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs translated the clause إضربوهن (idhribu:hunna) as pukullah istri-istri kalian (strike them lightly), but feminists insisted on the abaikanlah istri-istri kalian (attend not to them) phrasing option (Edip et al., 2007) or preferred pergilah meninggalkan istri-istri kalian (leave your wives behind) instead (Bakhtiar, 2011). Second, some studies emphasize the Quranic translation ideology from the critical discourse analysis perspective (Khajeh & Khanmohammad, 2011; Sideeg, 2015). This perspective claims that translators’ ideologies play a significant role in how a Quranic verse is reconstructed into a particular expression. Third, Quranic translation ideology is seen from the perspective of corpus linguistics (Spier, 2018). While there is a growing body of research on the translator’s ideology in Quranic translation, as mentioned, very few studies examined the topic through the lens of translation techniques.

To fill the gap, this study aims to examine the translator’s ideology in rendering Al-Qur’an into Indonesia. The focus is on the translators’ ideology represented in the translated works by the Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs published in 2002 and Muhammad Thalib and its factors. This study argues that the translator’s ideology cannot only be traced through the religious background, attitudes, social contexts, and state involvement, as mentioned in previous studies, but also through translation techniques. This research contributes both conceptually, methodologically, empirically, and practically. Conceptually, this research is expected to complement the concept of translation ideology, such as domestication and foreignisation, and ideological translation, such as feminist and reformist, pioneered by Munday (2016). Translation technique at the micro-scale could reveal the ideology of translation, translation of ideology and translator’s ideology at the macro scale. Methodologically, the application of translation technique by Molina and Hurtado Albir (2002) was also modified and equipped with textual, contextual, and intertextual verse-to-verse analysis to capture a comprehensive understanding of certain ideologies. Empirically, this research illustrates that differences in theological ideologies can be carried out across languages. Translating Qur’an into various languages can reveal the translator’s certain theological ideologies. Practically, this research implies the need to increase religious awareness and understanding of tolerance across cultures and religions. The differentiation of translating the Qur’an into various languages is not something to be debated and blamed on, but something that must be respected and appreciated. By doing so, peace and unity among communities and societies across languages, cultures, and religions can be realised, as well as hostility and hatred might be avoided. To further describe this matter, two questions were set:

1. How are the translators’ ideologies represented in both versions, the official and unofficial one?

2. What are the contributing factors behind their ideologies?

2. Literature review

2.1. Ideology and translation

The concept of ideology was first proposed as the science of ideas contrary to metaphysics by the French philosopher Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy at the end of the 18^th century (Bressler, 1999). This science of ideas refers to how we think, talk, and argue (Van Dijk, 2013). This idea was later developed into matters of doctrinal and political concerns popularized by some well-known figures. Marx and Engels (2016) referred to ideology as authoritarian ideas and bourgeois lifestyles. They believed that the ruling class continually coerced their ideology on the working class. In his case, ideology is entwined with the relationship between power and dominance. In contemporary Sociology, Manheim proposed a slightly different notion of ideology by defining it as a thinking style. It was later classified into three categories concerning particular individuals, communities, or civil society in a broader context (Bell, 2000). Linguists then broadened the concept of ideology to a larger extent which tends to be neutral and apolitical. For instance, Van Dijk (2013) expounds that ideology is a fundamental principle concerning a firm and axiomatic belief held by a particular group. Hence, ideology is a silent assumption, belief, and value system shared commonly within a social group (Hatim & Mason, 1997). This reference was later unfolded by Munday (2016), stating that ideology as a belief system disclosing an individual’s worldview as linguistic actualization.

In translation studies, an ideology concept is also extended. A better translation means maintaining some aspects such as accuracy, acceptance, and readability in the target language. However, this process is entirely dependent on the translator. The translators are part of particular social groups with shared beliefs and values, breaking their ethics code as they manipulate their texts and translation works. In this case, the translators can potentially unmask their identities and ideologies through the translation texts they produce. Similarly, Lefevere (2002) believes that translation texts are not void; the way translators understand themselves and their culture may significantly affect their translation. Alvarez and Vidal (1996) explain that any choice like adding or narrowing down a message and changing or choosing diction comes from various geographical, social, political, or cultural backgrounds, which dictate every decision made by the translators. Subsequently, Chesterman (2000) concludes that the text from the source language can be manipulated when translation into the target language takes place. Therefore, selected dictions in the translation works could be biased because it matters to translators’ ideologies or text translation ideologies. Zequan (2003) also argued that translators’ ideologies could be exposed to lexical-semantic and grammatical-syntactic features of a text, particularly in religious texts.

In addition, the translator ideology concept has expanded towards the translation ideology. It refers to the concept of good-bad, true-false in translation, namely what kind of translation is best for the reader. In this case, the ideology of translation is classified into foreignization and domestication (Venuti, 2017). Foreignization is oriented to the source language, while domestication is introduced to the target language. Foreignization ideology believes that a good translation is in accordance with the tastes and expectations of the reader, who wants the presence of a source text culture. On the other hand, domestication ideology is a translation ideology oriented to the target language. This ideology believes that a good translation meets the reader’s expectations by changing the foreign terms into the target language. There are three critical terms suggested by the adherents of this ideology: fluency, transparency, and domestication. This type of ideology wants the translation not to be felt like a translation but rather as part of the original tradition of the target language. Ultimately, this study intends to complement prior research on translator ideology in Qur’an translation into English, German, and Latin by analyzing translators’ ideology in Indonesian Quran translation, with a specific emphasis on official and unofficial versions.

2.2. Contributing factors to the translators’ ideology in translation activities

The ideology of the translator and the ideology of translation refer to two different things. The translator ideology refers to the problem of the translator’s system of ideas and beliefs that are intentionally or unintentionally inserted into the translation text, while the system of ideas and beliefs is not found in the source language text (Al-Harahsheh & Al-Omari, 2019; Amirdabbaghian & Shunmugam, 2019; Mäntynen & Kalliokoski, 2018). Conversely, the ideology of translation refers to the issue of good and bad, whether or not a translation is seen from the reader’s perspective (Al Farisi, 2020; Venuti, 2017). These two concepts can only be expressed and constructed through micro translation studies in the form of translation techniques. The study of translation techniques can not only reveal how the translator’s ideology and ideology of translation on the macro level but also can reveal what translation methods are used by translators on the meso level. So, it can be implied that one of the factors that influenced the emergence of the translator’s ideology was the use of translation techniques. In addition to translation techniques as an internal factor endorsing the emergence of the translator’s ideology in the translation process, the translators’ affiliation to a particular social organization is also considered an external factor (Abdo & Mousa, 2019).

The translation technique is a practical method applied by a particular translator to any word, phrase, clause, or sentence from the source language to transfer the message to the target language. There are 18 translation techniques: (1) adaptation, (2) amplification which includes addition, explicitation, and paraphrasing, (3) borrowing, which is classified into pure borrowing and naturalized borrowing (4) calque, (5) compensation, (6) description, (7) discursive creation, (8) established equivalence, (9) generalization, (10) linguistics amplification, (11) linguistics compression, (12) literal translation, (13) modulation, (14) particularization (15) reduction which includes implicitation and reduction, (16) substitution, (17) transposition, and (18) variation (Molina & Hurtado Albir, 2002).

However, these techniques are mostly not applicable in spreading ideological matters in the Quranic translation represented in either the official or the unofficial works; therefore, it has to be followed by the additional analyses of either textual, contextual, intra-textual, or intertextual. Furthermore, these modified translation techniques only reveal the methodological and ideological process of translation and thus bring the translator’s ideologies out of discussion. Hence, the theory of translators’ ideologies by Nord (2018) and the theory of Tertium comparationis by Leuven-Zwart (Hewson, 2011) are relevant in this context of discussion since both came into an agreement that applying microanalysis to translation works may unmask the translators’ true motives on the macro level.

3. Method

3.1. Research design

This research adopted a critical translation case study design. It is case study because it studies the Quranic translation texts, Al Qur’an dan Terjemahannya from the Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs (Kementerian Agama, 2012) and Muhammad Thalib’s Al-Qur’anul Karim Tarjamah Tafsiriyyah (Thalib, 2012). It is also a critical interpretative translation study since it involved the interpretation of Quranic textual translation, which was critical. It also embarked on the case where the translator, Muhammad Thalib, criticized the works of Quranic translation issued by the board of translators from the Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs, and it happened that the critic itself was susceptible to other criticism.

3.2. Data of the study

This qualitative study employed purposive sampling, which is not intended to provide a statistical representation but is rather based on the similar characteristics within a population (Ritchie et al., 2013). However, if there is a frequent calculation, it is only to strengthen its qualitative arguments. Besides, Ritchie et al. (2013) highlighted some matters of sampling diversity. This sampling diversity is essential to maximize the chance of various feature identification or related factors to the locus of the problem. This study then opted for only two chapters from the Qur’an: Yasin and An-Nisa, as some of the verse’s translations include a certain ideology. This is a response to a particular ideology interposed into the translator’s Quran translation texts rather than spatial restriction. Two versions of Quranic translation works analyzed in this study were issued by the Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs in 2002 and Muhammad Thalib. The first version was opted for because it was the most authoritative and preferred by most Muslim communities in Indonesia, while the latter was considered to criticize the official version for its numerous mistakes, which must be corrected at once. Moreover, the first version in its initial release applied the literal translation method, while the second version applied the interpretive translation method (Gunawan et al., 2022). This study compared these two versions of Quranic translation using Leuven-Zwart’s Tertium comparationis theory. This theory was preferred out consideration because the official version was compiled according to the Collaborative Translation Protocol (CTP), which was consensual. In contrast, the unofficial version was issued out of personal concerns. Henceforth, translation techniques on the micro-level can reveal the ideology of the translation and the translators’ ideology on the macro level.

3.3. Procedures and data analysis

Data collection was gained by skimming and scanning every verse that was possibly interposed by the translators’ ideology. These data were then brought into a focus group discussion (FGD) attended by five experts to discuss the translation techniques and translators’ ideology represented in those translation works. Data analysis was done by reckoning Molina and Hurtado Albir (2002) theory with some modifications by adopting theories from Leuven-Zwart (Hewson, 2011) and Nord (2018). This theory was regarded as the most comprehensive model available to disclose any translation technique and translator’s ideology from the translation works. The following are some of the analysis steps.

1. Determining which verse was interposed by translators’ ideology and its equivalent match in the Indonesian language;

2. Determining which technique of translation is applied;

3. Identifying the frequency of translation technique applied;

4. Determining the effect of translation techniques on the translator’s ideology

4. Findings and discussion

4.1. Translators’ ideology in Indonesian Quranic translation works

The ideology of the translator will always be present in the target text. When reading the target text, we are reading translators’ voices. The following examples of translated verses illustrate the difference between the two versions:

The clause اَنْفِقُوْا (anfiqu:) as shown in Table 1, marked the difference between the two versions. Terminologically, the clause anfiqu: means berinfaklah di jalan Allah, memberi makan, dan mengeluarkan sedekah (give to a charity for the sake of God, feed, and make a donation; Manzūr, 1955). Scholars in the field of Quranic interpretations from the classical school such as Al-Tabari (2000) and a contemporary school such as Al-Ṣiddīqy (2000) were in agreement in translating the clause into infakkanlah (give to a charity). This verse, contextually, talks about misdeeds by the Non-believers in Mecca who refused to help the poor from Muslim communities. Its contextual background was about how Abu Jahal met Abu Bakar, who, at that moment, fed the poor. He asked Abu Bakar, could Allah feed the poor by any means He wished? To which Abu Bakar replied, “Yes.” Abu Jahal then questioned why Allah would not feed them Himself. Abu Bakar responded by arguing that Allah would instead put certain people to the test by making them poor or wealthy. Allah would ask the poor to bear with patience and ordain the wealthy to commit to charity. Abu Jahal told Abu Bakar by swearing in the name of God that he (Abu Bakar) was undoubtedly wrong. He said so in accordance with his argument asking why Allah would not feed these poor people Himself if He had the will and let Abu Bakar do other job in His place instead (Al-Tabari, 2000). This verse, just like other related verses, illustrates the exactly similar arguments proposed by Non-Believers of Quraisy to defy the message from the Prophet who asked them to accept The Quran and to bear witness for one true God that is Allah.

Table 1. Yasin, [36]: 47 وَاِذَا قِيْلَ لَهُمْ اَنْفِقُوْا مِمَّا رَزَقَكُمُ اللّٰهُ

Official	Dan apabila dikatakan kepada mereka, “Infakkanlah sebagian rezeki yang diberikan Allah kepadamu.”
	And when it is said to them, “Give to a charity from that Allah has provided for you.”
Unofficial (Thalib’s)	Bila ada yang berkata kepada mereka: “Dermakanlah untuk membela Islam sebagian dari rezeki yang Allah karuniakan kepada kalian.
	If it is said to them, “Donate for the sake of defending Islam from that which Allah has provided for you.”

The official version maintained the clause اَنْفِقُوْا (anfiqu:) to its textual and contextual meaning that is infakkanlah (give to a charity). On the contrary, Thalib chose to translate the clause into berdermalah untuk membela Islam (donate for the sake of defending Islam). The word berdermalah (donate) in that clause was more acceptable, textually and contextually, to the linguists and scholars in the Quranic interpretation studies. However, the following phrase untuk membela Islam (for the sake of defending Islam) was out of context and was never considered an inherent meaning to the text. Dictionary of Indonesian Language defines the word membela (defend) as memihak untuk melindungi dan mempertahankan (to take aside to protect and to defend; Sunendar et al., 2015). If the word defends were put before the word Islam in a clause, it will constitute the meaning of choosing to protect and defend Islam. Thalib, insisting on the idea of defending Islam, had allowed his political ideology to interpose in his translation work. This also affirmed his position as a commanding officer in The Assembly of Religious Defenders (Majlis Mujahidin Indonesia), with Islamic laws established as its political agenda. It would be appropriate if the Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs translators professionally ignored their ideological agenda from any translation work.

Table 2 illustrates the translation difference between صِرَاطٌ مُّسْتَقِيْمٌ (şira:ṯ mustaqi:m) in the official and unofficial one. The official version translated the phrase into jalan yang lurus (the straight path), while the unofficial version insisted on Islam adalah agama-Ku yang benar (Islam is my truthful religion). Lexically, the word şira:ṯ means jalan (path; Manzūr, 1955). However, its etymological origin means menelan (to swallow). Its etymological background regards the path is so wide that it seems to swallow anyone who passes through it (Manzūr, 1955). Whenever this word is attached to something, the attachment can be traced back to Allah like the phrase şira:ṯaka (jalan-Mu/Your-path), şira:ṯi: (jalan-Ku/My-path), and to those believers who were bestowed by the grace of God such in the following phrase şira:ṯ al-ladhi:na an’amta ‘alaihim (the path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor). On the other hand, the word mustaqi:m means lurus (straight). Conclusively, şira:ṯ mustaqi:m means a straight wide path one takes to achieve his or her goals. This straight, wide path is the only way that points toward true happiness in this world and the afterworld. Al-Tabari (2000) added that this straight wide path is the only religion accepted by Allah. This idea was later supported by Al-Damagani (1980) who asserted that the word şira:ṯ means the Religion of Allah. This very religion was tasked to every prophet from Adam, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa, to Muhammad -peace be upon them-. The religion of Allah includes every Abrahamic religion that came before Islam and was not exclusively about Islam.

Table 2. Yasin, [36]: 61 وَاَنِ اعْبُدُوْنِيْ ۗهٰذَا صِرَاطٌ مُّسْتَقِيْمٌ

Official	Dan hendaklah kamu menyembah-Ku. Inilah jalan yang lurus.”
	And that you worship only Me, this is the straight path.
Unofficial (Thalib’s)	Seharusnya kaliaan taat dan tunduk kepada-Ku. Islam adalah agama-Ku yang benar.
	You should obey and be subject to only Me. Islam is my truthful religion.

Contextually, this verse ordered all human beings to obey and subject to only Allah by fulfilling all His commands, avoiding any prohibition, and ignoring Satan’s tricks and persuasions. If a servant of Allah could fulfill these commands and avoid any prohibition, he would walk on the blessed path based on the truthful religion that worships Allah (Kaṡīr, 1999). The idea behind this translation was based on prior verses that elaborated the punishments Allah inflicted on whom He called children of Adam who worship any God but Him and defy to follow His guidance. This very idea insisted that the message has been announced since the first prophet, Adam -peace be upon him- to his descendants up to this day. That message also serves to remind everyone that the feud with Satan had already begun during the time of Adam, and therefore, any attempt of trickery or deception from Satan must be ignored by any means necessary (Shihab, 2004).

Thus, the official version in Table 2 is likely to be closer to textual and contextual meaning than Thalib’s. It could be since the translators from The Ministry of Religious Affairs translated the clause هٰذَا صِرَاطٌ مُّسْتَقِيْمٌ (ha:dha: şira:ṯ mustaqi:m) into inilah jalan yang lurus (this is the straight path) while Muhammad Thalib insisted on Islam adalah agama-Ku yang benar (Islam is my truthful religion). Thalib’s version lacked the contextual background presented within the verse, as stated in the former description. This fact affirmed that Muhammad Thalib allowed his ideological preferences to interpose into his work. This particular ideology regards Islam as the only true religion accepted by Allah and, therefore, other religions deserve no recognition. This made Thalib’s version an open interpretation of the phrase ṣirāṭ mustaqīm, as acclaimed by some commentators of The Qur’an such as Al-Samarqandī (n.d.), rather than a translation of the phrase. This translator’s speech articulation must be a clear statement of his desired goal to establish Islamic laws. In other respects, the translators from The Ministry of Religious Affairs attempted to avoid any biased interpretation in their translation work.

Example in Table 3 shows different translations of the phrase اُولِى الْاَمْرِ (uli: al-amri). In the official version, the phrase اُولِى الْاَمْرِ (uli: al-amri) was translated explicitly as pemegang kekuasaan (those in authority), while in the Thalib’s version, the phrase was translated into para pemimpin yang menegakkan syariat Islam (the rulers who practice Islamic laws). Lexically, the word اُولِى (uli:) is a plural form of the word ولي (waliy) which etymologically means pemilik (the owner), yang mengurus (the administrator), or menguasai (the one who takes control over everything; Manzūr, 1955). This plural form refers to more people, and the wordالْاَمْرِ (al-Amr) means perintah (commands) or urusan (affairs; Manzūr, 1955). Therefore, the phrase ulī al-amr refers to anyone who gains authority over every affair among the Muslim communities. They gained trust from their community to administer social affairs and took no stand in theological nor religious matters (Shihab, 2005). Some commentators added that they are the rulers or the government (Al-Tabari, 2000). Other commentators reported that they are scholars in religious fields (Al-Qurtubi, 1964). Some of them even argued that they are the ones who represent the public from various communities and professions (Rida, 1990).

Table 3. An-Nisa, [4]: 59 يٰٓاَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ اٰمَنُوْٓا اَطِيْعُوا اللّٰهَ وَاَطِيْعُوا الرَّسُوْلَ وَاُولِى الْاَمْرِ مِنْكُمْۚ

Official	Wahai orang-orang yang beriman! Taatilah Allah dan taatilah Rasul (Muhammad), dan Ulil Amri (pemegang kekuasaan) di antara kamu.
	O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad) and those in authority among you.
Unofficial (Thalib’s)	Wahai kaum mukmin, taatlah kalian kepada Allah dan taatlah kepada Rasul-Nya, serta para pemimpin yang menegakkan syariat Islam dari golongan kalian.
	O believers, you must obey Allah and obey His Messenger and the rulers who practice Islamic laws among you.

The contextual background behind the verse is about a band of the Prophet’s fellows led by Abdullah bin Hudzaifah bin Qais sent on an expedition to march with a troop without the presence of the Prophet. At that moment, the commanding officer of the troop ordered his subordinates to jump into the balefire as an amusement during the rest. Intending no more than to test and joke around, the commanding officer ordered them to jump into the fire. Undoubtedly, the order was causing friction. They then denounced that matter to The Prophet. The Prophet argued that in this case, the commanding officer did not make that order out of intention, and there was no obedience to someone who ordered such badness or vileness (Al-Tabari, 2000).

Based on the previous arguments, the official version is more likely to fit its textual and contextual meaning, while Thalib’s version has none. Thalib’s version has neither textual nor contextual meaning due to the added phrase yang menegakkan syariat Islam (who practice Islamic laws), which is different from its source language. It is clear that the added phrase contains Thalib’s political ideology. It has the message that presaged the translator’s self-interest in his translation work that tends to recast the original message from the source language. This particular interest is related to the translator’s wish to make the legitimate ruler or the government establish the Islamic laws. Anchored in this evidence, it can be noted that the official version of the translated work is consistent with the textual and contextual meaning of the verse as opposed to Thalib’s.

4.2. Contributing factors to translators’ ideology

The linguistic factor is related to translation techniques, while non-linguistics is associated with the translators’ backgrounds (Abdo & Mousa, 2019). The FGD session came to the following conclusions: The Official version applied thirteen (13) translation techniques to the Surah Yasin in their translation works and, in details, they were presented as follows; (1) established equivalence in 65,67% cases, (2) amplification (explicitation) in 14,17% cases, (3) compensation in 6,36% cases, (4) modulation in 3,96% cases, (5) literal translation in 3,96% cases, (6) implicitation in 1,2% cases, (7) amplification (paraphrasing) in 1,2% cases, and (8) particularization in 1,08% cases.

The data displayed that the established equivalence became the dominant translation technique applied by the board of translators from The Ministry. This technique became dominant due to a profound notice of the accuracy while retrieving the message from the source language to the target language. The accuracy was based on the use of familiar terms or expressions that could be from dictionaries or colloquial speeches (Molina & Hurtado Albir, 2002), and comments from the scholars in Quranic interpretations. Since the official translator of the Ministry has a cautious approach to rendering Quranic verses by using established equivalence translation techniques, the use of literal translation techniques can not be avoided. Nevertheless, this literal translation technique lessened both the accuracy and the retrieval of the message in the target language since it disregarded the contextual background of the message in the source language. This technique, in particular, was found in the translation of waw isti’naf, which means and (as a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence) into the Indonesian language despite its inaccuracy in grammar. The verse وما علينا إلا البلاغ المبين (wa ma ‘alaina: illa al-bala:gh al-mubi:n), for instance, was translated into and we are not responsible except for clear notification. The word and at the beginning of a sentence is grammatically unacceptable in Indonesian since and functions as a conjunction and not a word to begin a sentence with as in Arabic.

Thalib’s version undeniably showed different results. His work applied 8 translation techniques: (1) amplification (paraphrasing) as much as 27,33%, (2) established equivalence as much as 25,99%, (3) amplification (explicitation) as much as 15,55%, (4) implicitation as much as 12,8%, (5) modulation as much as 8,52%, (6) compensation as much as 3,48%, (7) transposition as much as 2,32%, and (8) discursive creation as much as 1,55%. He was discovered to apply discursive creation translation technique too. This particular technique was used to patch a temporary comparison, which was irrelevant to the original context (Molina & Hurtado Albir, 2002). The application of this technique presupposed the translator’s idea or thoughts being contaminating the translation works in the target language with a message which was previously unknown in the source language. Since the translator was among the commanding officers (amir) in Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia, the idea and thoughts about the establishment of Islamic laws were disseminated through his translation works. The application of discursive creation translation technique was found in the translation of the following verses; 47, 56, 61, and 67 from Surah Yasin [36] and several verses that were mentioned before. As for Surah Yasin, only two out of four verses—verses 47 and 61—were biased. They are against the doctrine of the establishment of Islamic laws, which is widely known as the transnational ideology.

The non-linguistic factors that contributed to the interposition of translators’ ideology were their different backgrounds, which in this case, their affiliation to particular Islamic social organizations. The translators from The Ministry of Religious Affairs in 2002 included the following individuals; Quraish Shihab (a scholar in Quranic interpretation), Sayyid Agil Husin Al-Munawwar (a scholar in Quranic subjects and a spiritual elder at Nahḍatul Ulama (NU)), A. Baiquni (a scholar in Quranic interpretation), Ahsin Sakho Muhammad (a scholar in Quranic studies and a spiritual elder at NU), Ali Mustafa Ya’kub (a scholar in Hadith subject field and a spiritual elder at NU), Huzaimah Yanggo (a member of Religious Scholars Council), Hamdani Anwar (a scholar in Quranic interpretation), and Faizah Ali Syibromalisi (a scholar in Quranic interpretation). The data showed that the board of translators by the Ministry consisted of scholars in Quranic interpretation studies and were affiliated with NU, one of the largest religious communities in Indonesia. Contrary to that, Muhammad Thalib was a commanding officer in Indonesian Mujahideen Council.His mission was to enforce Islamic laws in Indonesia using an ideological approach through his works in Quranic translation. This mission shared the organization’s vision to practice Islamic laws in comprehensive manners by adopting Al-Qur’an and hadith in every aspect of constitutional laws and therefore established Khilafah, a political system by enforcing Islamic norms and values in regards to the transnational ideology (Kurniawan & Aminuddin, 2018; Yahya, 2018).

This research shows ideological differences between official and unofficial translators in Indonesia and their translation techniques. The official version kept the message intact using an established equivalent translation technique. This fact is in line with Sunaryo’s (1967) statement as the first head of Indonesian ministry of religious affairs translators team. He argued that the target text should be equivalent to the source text. If ambiguous words have no equivalent in the target text, then explicitation, addition, and annotation translation techniques can be adopted. Therefore, addition and reduction of the source text message can be avoided. Since there is no addition or reduction of source text messages, it can be argued that the official translators took a more moderate step in rendering the Qur’an. This is in line with the principle of religious moderation promoted by official translators as the state’s representatives (Pektas, 2021).

Drawing on the Islamic perspective, moderation could be considered justice or balance and better or median and refers to a framework of moral values based on patience, humility, and tolerance (Islam & Khatun, 2015; Umar, 2016). In other words, moderate Islam refers to the middle position of balancing actions that deny the radical, the extreme, or the fanatical, as well as poor understanding of how to carry out Islamic teaching in day-to-day life (Davids, 2017; Islam & Khatun, 2015; Ab Rashid et al., 2020; Yaakub & Othman, 2016). In this regard, official translators apply moderate Islamic understanding, on the one hand, and show tolerance, on the other, throughout the target text to preserve the diversity of religious traditions, ethnicities, languages and to create peace for the entire universe, as well as to avoid conflicts and disputes across national, cultural, and religious lines. Without moderation, Indonesian state will be separated. That is why Indonesia adheres to the principles of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika and Pancasila as basic teachings in nation and state.

On the contrary, Thalib’s Quranic translation adopted an interpretive translation providing a comprehensive Quranic description but disregarding its contextual considerations (Thalib, 2012, 2011). This resulted in unnatural and manipulative translation works (Gunawan et al., 2022). Lefevere (2002) argues that the translation texts were sincerely disposed of by translators’ backgrounds. The source text could be manipulated in the target text (Baker, 2003; Elhadary, 2013). The research conducted by Al-Tarawneh (2021) proved that terrorist groups use Quran translations to brainwash young Muslims in the West by injecting their violent ideology into translations. In the same vein, Elnemr (2020) reported that Muhammad Asad adheres to rational and Mu’tazalite views in his translation, emphasizing intellect and personal knowledge over tradition imitation. He defends allegorical interpretations of texts, uses unintentional interpretations of verses to convey his ideology, criticizes mainstream exegesis, and analyzes the meaning in terms of likelihood

In this context, because Thalib was a fanatic supporter of Islamic laws establishment, the element of transnational Islamic ideology appeared in his work. This fact was supported by Kurniawan and Aminuddin (2018) and Yahya’s (2018) research findings. Other empirical evidence reported that interpretive Quran translation of Thalib is an attempt to rationalize ideology of Jihad as a struggling ideology towards the implementation of Islamic law in Indonesia by distorting the meaning of the certain verses of the Qur’an. This argument can be proved by using commentary books in accordance with ideology, and some translations of certain verses tend to lead to radicalism and extremism (Fadal & Heriyanto, 2020). In the same vein, Sobirin (2020) found that interpretive Quran translation of Thalib contains an ideology opposed to Pancasila. Thalib tried to fight for the formalization of Islamic Sharia into positive Indonesian law as contained in the target text. He, for example, more often interpreted the word tāghūt in the Al-Qur’an as a heretical rule. Contextually, this rule is interpreted as thoughts, concepts of life, and ideology that mislead people from the way of Allah, including the principles of democracy, pluralism, secularism, liberalism, and Pancasila. This research implies that enhancing religious awareness across cultures and religions is essential. Qur’an translation is considered as a work of human creativity and not the word of God. The translation of the Al-Qur’an is not the same as the Qur’an itself. Therefore, mutual respect must be prioritized so that no hostility and hatred occur in the community.

Moreover, both moderate and transnational Islamic ideologies were likely to emerge due to linguistic and non-linguistic factors. If the official version of Quranic translation works from The Ministry of Religious Affairs adopted the established equivalence translation technique, it promoted a moderate Islamic ideology. However, when Muhammad Thalib’s version applied the discursive creation translation technique, it promoted transnational Islamic ideology. This argument reflects that the application of translation techniques from the micro-level may discover and disclose the use of the translator’s ideology at the macro-level. This description, therefore, reconstructed Munday’s theory (Munday, 2016), which accounted for only translation ideology through foreignization, domestication, and ideology involution consisting of texts with certain translators’ ideologies, such as feminist, and orientalist, and so forth. Such construction was built within the context of how these micro elements function in the translation process. Such a translation technique could elaborate its relevance to the macro elements such as translators’ ideology. Hence, I referred to such construction by using the term ideology cognition.

Hence, other contributing factors to the interposition of translator’s ideology into the works of Quranic translation were non-linguistic. These factors are concerned with the affiliation to certain social organizations. The Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs translators consisted of eight individuals with diverse backgrounds. They were charismatic Islamic scholars from one of Indonesia’s biggest, most significant religious communities in Indonesia, Nahdlatul Ulama, and academicians who prolifically wrote and translated books. For this reason, the translators were very careful to render verses so that they tended to preserve the source language by using established equivalent techniques. Muhammad Thalib’s works of interpretive Quranic translation were otherwise disparate. His works were based on the meaning of The Quran according to the interpretations of Islamic scholars. The coordinated translation and interpretation concepts made him prefer paraphrasing as the dominant translation technique. Nida reasons out that the paraphrasing technique made the translation works arguably subjective (as cited in Molina & Hurtado Albir, 2002). The predisposition in favor of paraphrasing technique was adopted by the like of Robert Ketton, other than Muhammad Thalib, when he translated the Qur’an from Arabic into Latin at the beginning of the eleventh century (Burman, 1998). Muhammad Thalib’s works tended toward the transnational Islamic ideology, while Robert Ketton associated his Latin translation of The Qur’an with orientalism.

This study implies a strong tendency among the translators to imbue their ideology in the works of Quranic translation based on the social, cultural, and political context where they lived. For example, Quranic translation works from China should be different from that of Iran. A similar case goes to Quranic translation works from Japan should be different from the translation works from India. Such cases implied cross-linguistic Quranic translations. These theological ideologies drove translators to fit their Quranic translation works with their own agenda. These particular ideologies made the original ideology-free texts become stereotypical of certain ideologies. The former statements validated Nord’s argument (Nord, 2018), which concluded that each Qur’an translation has its ideological tendencies depending on the translator, editor, and even the country. It is no surprise, for that reason, that we could observe the translators’ diverse ideologies in their translations of the Qur’an. For example, the Jeddah Qur’an translation is consistent with Aswaja ideology. Maulawi Sher Ali’s Islamabad Qur’an translation consistently reflects Ahmadiyah ideology in India and Pakistan (Afrouz, 2019). Muhammad Taqiuddin Al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan’s consistently reflects Sunni ideology in Madinah Al-Munawwarah. Edip Yuksel’s US Qur’an translation embodies both reformism and Ahlussunnah ideology (Edip et al., 2007). Ahmed Ali’s Qur’an translation embodies both reformism and tafsiriyah ideology, rendering it less stylish; and Aisha Bewley’s Qur’an translation embodies both liberal and stylistic ideology (Suaidi & Arifin, 2021). In Indonesia, we might find the ideology of moderate Islam from Indonesian religious affairs and transnational Islamic ideology from Muhammad Thalib.

5. Conclusion

The ideology of translators in the Quran could be traced by looking particularly at their system of ideas, values, and beliefs in the translated text as the previous researchers have undertaken but also even more deeply by exposing the use of translation techniques. The use of translation techniques demonstrates the strong relationship between translation techniques and the ideology of translators. This study concluded that the translators from the Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia were leaning towards a moderate Islamic ideology. At the same time, Muhammad Thalib was in defense of transnational Islamic ideology. This statement was established due to the use of translation techniques of either established equivalence or the discursive creation. It was also affirmed with the relevant, comprehensive information concerning each translator’s social, cultural, and religious backgrounds. The application of translation technique was also modified methodologically. It was equipped with textual, contextual, and intertextual verse-to-verse analyses to capture a thorough understanding of certain ideologies which drove these translators.

In addition to that, the matters of theological ideologies that drove the translators contributed to turning the works of Quranic translation away from their objective state. The social, cultural, political, and environmental backgrounds of the translators turned their works subjective. These remarks led to the potential cross-lingual Quranic translation due to the principal difference in theological ideologies. Quran translation in Japanese must be very distinctive from that of Indian. Qur’an translation in Indonesia must be very distinctive from that of Europe and so forth. All versions of Quranic translation works are distinctive and biased towards the typical ideologies in each nation. The cross-lingual Quranic translation provides an excellent platform for future studies. They would provide a comprehensive description of the translators’ ideology and the translation ideology, which is often affected by the technical aspects of translation on the micro-level. Furthermore, the scope of the study can be expanded from the mere verses of the Qur’an to provide more satisfactory results and insights.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Fahmi Gunawan

Fahmi Gunawan holds a PhD in Linguistics. He is an associate professor in the Department of Arabic Language Education, Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kendari, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. He has fourteen years of experiences in teaching and research. His research interests include but are not restricted to translation, critical discourse analysis, systemic functional linguistics, sociopragmatic, language education and language in Islamic studies.