ABSTRACT
I n volumes seventeen and eighteen of the journal Hamdard Islamicus, we find a discussion between Salah Salim Ali and Anthony H.Johns on the problem of translating ellipsis in the Qur'an.l Ali in his article states his belief that M.M. Pickthall and A. Yusuf Ali, two Muslim translators of the Qur'an, misunderstood the ellipted phrases in the Qur'an and must have, accordingly, mistranslated them. Johns in his turn defends the efforts of both translators in rendering the ellipted terms in the Qur'an and argues that their translations are "faithful to the exegetical tradition"; in this case he supports his argument with the Tafs'ir al-Jaliilayn and the Tafs'ir al-Kamr of Fakhr aI-Din al-Razi (d. 606/1209). At the end of his article, Johns warns modern scholars of the Qur'an that:
"[w]hile no one would suggest that all philological problems in the Qur'an are resolved, or that there are no new and fruitful insights to be gained from a continuing study of the text, it is unwise (if not blasphemous) to take the Qur'an as one might take a piece of modern Arabic writing, without reference to the tradition of interpretation that lies behind it. A contemporary scholar may indeed discover new insights, but has the responsibility of pointing out in what respects and why, a well-established view has been put aside, and at the very least recognize that one has been put aside. It is hardly appropriate to look at an English rendering of the Qur'an, to draw attention to solecisms occurring in it, and attempt to redress them by unargued assertions, and the arbitrary use of the concept of ellipsis to solve non-existent problems, disregarding the methodology and insights achieved by tradition, and thereby diluting rather than clarifying the text."2
