Case Study
Editorial revision of a classical Arabic commentary translation
A detailed editorial revision of a translation of classical Arabic commentary, where the original English is often technically competent but the editing brings the language to the level of precision, naturalness, and care that the text demands. Many of the original renderings would pass as acceptable to a casual reader. The observations below show why acceptable is not always sufficient: key terms can be mistranslated, literal wording can lose the force of the Arabic, source material can be omitted, and sentence structure can remain too close to the Arabic for the English to read naturally.
The original translates مهر as “dowry.” In English, a dowry is normally what the bride’s family gives to the groom or the couple. That is the opposite of mahr in Islamic law, which is a gift given by the groom to the bride.
This is not a minor terminology preference. “Dowry” imports the wrong cultural arrangement into the text. “Bridal gift” reflects the Arabic accurately and avoids that inversion.
Before
After
Before
After
The Arabic phrase أن تميلوا ميلاً شديداً from the truth into falsehood carries strong directional energy. The original follows the Arabic word pattern literally with “deviate a great deviation,” but this is not an idiomatic English expression and has little force.
“Swerve sharply away” gives the English reader the same movement and emphasis without reproducing the Arabic structure mechanically.
Before
After
Before
After
ابتعدتم conveys more than simple avoidance. It suggests deliberate and active distancing. “Avoid” communicates the basic idea, but it loses the force of the source.
“Keep well away from” restores that active sense without overstating it. The revision also regularises the surrounding sentence so the English reads more naturally as a whole.
Before
After
Before
After
The Arabic names several dimensions of human weakness. It first refers to weakness in the self and the body, then separately to weakness of resolve, ambition, and patience.
The original compresses all of this into “inwardly and physically.” It therefore omits an entire clause from the source. The revision restores material already present in the Arabic, including the weakness of resolve, ambition, and patience.
Before
After
Before
After
This observation uses the same passage as the one above, but focuses on sentence structure rather than the omitted material.
The Before version follows the Arabic sequence closely: “It is Allah’s Will,” then “among them is His allowing,” followed by “for He knows.” The result is grammatically possible, but reads like a translation. The revised version restructures the sentence around natural English relationships: “wants to make things easy,” “part of that ease,” and “because He knows.”
The full revised sentence also restores omitted source material, addressed separately in the preceding observation. Here the focus is the way the revision makes the clause structure readable in English.
Before
After
Before
After
The Arabic is a rhetorical question with an element of exasperation. The right path was not difficult, and no hardship would have followed from taking it.
The original conveys the basic content but reads neutrally. “Ever” and “simply” bring out the implied force of the question without changing its meaning. These are small changes, but they restore a tonal quality the literal wording misses.
Before
After
Before
After
“Arbiter” and “arbitrator” are both possible translations of حكم. Here, “arbiter” is more concise and serves a sentence that already contains several relationships and clauses.
The revision also clarifies the structure around the term. Rather than repeating “an arbitrator” twice, it gives the reader a direct relation between the two people: one from the husband’s family and one from the wife’s. The broader revision also recasts other literal elements in the sentence, including “aversion and discord” and “estrangement and enmity,” so that the sequence reads as coherent English rather than as a close mirror of Arabic phrasing.
Before
After
Before
After
This observation concerns the consistency and naturalness of theological register, not the identity of the figure named in the source. The excerpt is therefore shortened to the wording needed for the editorial point.
The original uses “Allah Almighty” almost as a default, regardless of what the Arabic says in a given passage. The revision adjusts the register contextually: “Allah the Exalted” where the source invokes an appropriate epithet, and simply “Allah” where it does not.
It also removes redundancy. “Performed acts of obedience that Allah commanded them” repeats the same idea, as does “avoided the prohibitions that Allah forbade them.” The revised sentence says each thing once while preserving the formal register of the source.
Before
After
Before
After