ترجمة الاستفهام البلاغي في الحديث

King Saud University
Deanship of Higher Studies

Department of English Language and Literature
The Translation of Rhetorical Questions in Hadith from Arabic into

English: A Functionalist Perspective
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Masters Degree in Applied Linguistics in the Department of English at the
College of Arts, King Saud University
By
Najla Abdul-Aziz Al-Fadda
Under the Supervision of
Prof. Mahmoud Isma'il Saleh
1st Semester
1430/1431 (2009/2010)
Abstract
The present study attempts to investigate the possibility of achieving
functional equivalence when translating rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic
into English. Three translations of An-Nawawi's Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of
the Righteous) (1992) were compared: S. Al-Maihbs Gardens of the Righteous
(1999), M.Amin and Al-Arabi bin Razduqs Riyd-us-Saliheen (1999), and
M.Khans Gardens of the Righteous (Riyadh-as-Salihin) (1975).
The data analyzed consisted of seventeen rhetorical questions representing
seventeen rhetorical meanings. The analysis of these rhetorical questions followed
a linguistic approach which was based on Mousas levels of rhetorical questions
(1995): the syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and aesthetic levels. Each translation of
a rhetorical question was examined in terms of these levels and in comparison with
the original rhetorical question. To get objective results and to validate the
discussion, the readers responses to the translations were examined. This was
done through a questionnaire distributed to three bilingual scholars experienced in
the two languages involved (i.e., Arabic and English). They evaluated the
translated rhetorical questions in terms of the four levels mentioned above. Based
on the analysis and the comparisons, the degree of adequacy of a translation was
determined on the basis of its success in maintaining functional equivalence.
The results showed that partial rather than complete functional equivalence
could be achieved when translating rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic into
English. They also showed that there were certain linguistic and extra-linguistic
signals and strategies used by translators in order to convey the functions of the
original rhetorical questions. Al-Maihb scored slightly a higher percentage in his
translations of the rhetorical questions analyzed which implied that his translation
is slightly better in achieving functional equivalence when translating rhetorical
questions in Hadith from Arabic into English.
The study consists of five chapters. The first chapter is an introductory one
which deals with the significance, hypotheses, and limitations of the study. The
second reviews the literature on rhetorical questions and Hadith translations. The
third states the methodology of the study. The fourth is a display of the analysis of
rhetorical questions and the evaluation of the translations. The fifth is a concluding
one listing the findings, conclusions, and suggestions for further research.
- ) -( : )(
)( )(.
.

)( :

.

.

.

.
:

Dedication
To my parents,
to whom my debt is inexpressible
Acknowledgements
All praise is due to Allah only the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and
salutation be upon all Prophets, to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), his household and
Companions.
It would be difficult to thank adequately all those whose efforts have
contributed to this work. Nevertheless, there are some without whose help it is
doubtful that the work could have been completed.
With all the respect to all the people who made this thesis possible, I can not
be more grateful to anyone than to my parents Professor Abdul-Aziz Al-Fadda and
Professor Noura Al-Twaijri who had always been the sources of inspiration and
encouragement. They got me started and kept me going. Special thanks are due to
their moral support, love, night prayers and consistent encouragement.
My deepest gratitude and sincerest appreciation goes to my supervisor
Professor Mahmoud Isma'il Saleh for his encouragement, patience, and insightful
comments. His guidance has been invaluable and his great assistance is equally
appreciated. For his support and encouragement I shall always be indebted.
My gratitude is extended to Professor Moheiddin A. Homeidi and Professor
Ahmad A. Al-Banyan for agreeing to serve on my thesis committee. I thank them
for the time they spared for reading and commenting on this work.
I am also very much indebted and grateful to the committee of referees who
participated in this study for their sincere help and indispensable input. They
adjudicated the quality of the translated rhetorical questions under investigation
and offered valuable insights.
I would also extend my sincere thanks to the Deputy Chairperson of the
College of Languages and Translation at King Saud University, Mrs. Hoda AlHelaisi and the Deputy Head of the Language Unit at the College of Languages
and Translation, Mrs.Hassna Al-Fayez and all the faculty members in my College
for their moral support.
Last but not least, I am grateful to all my brothers and sisters for saving no
effort to help in making this work done. A large vote of thanks is due to my dear
husband Mr. Fayez Al-Fayez who has continuously offered his support,
encouragement, and understanding. My thanks also go to my son Sultan who
suffered with me all along and shared the dream with me.
Table of Contents
Abstract
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Abbreviations and Transliteration Symbols
Chapter One: Introduction
I
V
VI
VIII
XIII
XV
XVI
1
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Significance of the study
1.3 Statement of the problem
1.4 Purpose of the study
1.5 Research hypotheses
1.6 Delimitations of the study
10
1.7 Definition of terms
10
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature
12
2.1 Functional equivalence in translation
12
2.2 Rhetorical questions in Arabic
27
2.3 Rhetorical questions in English
33
2.4 The translation of rhetorical questions
40
2.5 Hadiths translation quality assessment
48
2.6 Rhetorical questions in Hadith studies
53
2.7 Conclusion
57
Chapter Three: Methodology
62
3.1 Research data
62
3.2 Data analysis
66
3.2.1 Theoretical frame of analysis
66
3.2.2 Procedures for data analysis
70
Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Evaluation
75
4.1 Hadith (1)
75
4.1.1 English Translation of the Hadith
76
4.1.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question
76
4.1.3 Analysis
77
4.1.4 Evaluation
79
4.2 Hadith (2)
81
81
82
4.2.3 Analysis
83
4.2.4 Evaluation
87
4.3 Hadith (3)
89
90
90
4.3.3 Analysis
91
4.3.4 Evaluation
93
4.4 Hadith (4)
95
95
96
4.4.3 Analysis
97
4.4.4 Evaluation
99
4.5 Hadith (5)
102
102
103
4.5.3 Analysis
104
4.5.4 Evaluation
105
4.6 Hadith (6)
106
107
107
4.6.3 Analysis
108
4.6.4 Evaluation
110
4.7 Hadith (7)
112
112
113
4.7.3 Analysis
114
4.7.4 Evaluation
116
4.8 Hadith (8)
118
119
119
4.8.3 Analysis
120
4.8.4 Evaluation
122
4.9 Hadith (9)
123
124
124
4.9.3 Analysis
126
4.9.4 Evaluation
129
4.10 Hadith (10)
131
132
132
4.10.3 Analysis
133
4.10.4 Evaluation
136
4.11 Hadith (11)
138
138
139
4.11.3 Analysis
141
4.11.4 Evaluation
143
4.12 Hadith (12)
144
145
145
4.12.3 Analysis
147
4.12.4 Evaluation
150
4.13 Hadith (13)
152
153
154
4.13.3 Analysis
155
4.13.4 Evaluation
159
4.14 Hadith (14)
161
161
162
4.14.3 Analysis
163
4.14.4 Evaluation
165
4.15 Hadith (15)
167
168
168
4.15.3 Analysis
170
4.15.4 Evaluation
171
4.16 Hadith (16)
173
173
174
4.16.3 Analysis
175
4.16.4 Evaluation
177
4.17 Hadith (17)
178
179
179
4.17.3 Analysis
180
4.17.4 Evaluation
182
Notes
185
Chapter Five: Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations
188
5.1 Summary
188
5.2 Results
190
5.3 Conclusions
220
5.4 Recommendations
224
5.5 Suggestions for further research
226
References
228
Appendix
236
List of Tables
Page
Table 1. General scores for the translation of rhetorical question (1)
79
Table 2. The scores of specific levels for the translation of rhetorical question(1)
80
87
88
94
94
100
Table 8. The scores of specific levels for the translation of rhetorical question (4)
101
105
106
111
111
117
117
122
123
130
130
136
137
143
143
151
151
Table 25.Tenses and their meanings in conditional sentences
157
159
160
166
166
171
172
177
178
183
183
Table 36. The overall scores of the three translations
214
Table 37. The overall scores of the specific levels for the translation of the rhetorical questions
215
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Techniques used to facilitate or hinder the achievement of functional equivalence in
the translation of rhetorical questions
196
Figure 2. The overall scores of the three translations
214
Figure 3. The overall scores of the specific levels for the translation of the rhetorical questions
216
Abbreviations and Transliteration Symbols

A. Abbreviations
PBUH
SL
ST
TC
TL
TT
Peace Be Upon Him

Source Language
Source Text
Target Culture
Target Language
Target Text
B. Transliteration System
The following transliteration system is adopted from Saleh (2002).
Arabic Letter
Name
'alif
hamza
baa
taa
thaa
jiim
Haa
khaa
daal
dhaal
raa
zaay
siin
shiin
Saad
Daad
Taa
Zaa
ayn
ghayn
faa
qaaf
kaaf
laam
miim
nuun
Transliteration
aa (if a vowel)
'
b
t
th
J
H
kh
d
dh
r
z
s
sh
S
D
T
Z
gh
f
q
k
l
m
n
-
-
-
haa
waaw
yaa
fatHa
Damma
kasra
h
w or uu (for the vowel)
y or ii ( for the vowel)
a ( short vowel as in ago)
u ( short vowel as in put)
i (short vowel as in fit)
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
It has been widely thought that translation is a process of substituting words
of one language with that of another, followed by adjusting word order and
grammatical forms (Owaidah, 1991). This is a misconception. Translation, in fact,
deals with language in use which is concerned with speech events. A translator,
therefore, has to produce a TT (Target Text) equivalent to that of the original not
only on the semantic and syntactic levels, but also on the pragmatic level. In other
words, a translator should aim at producing the "maximum transmission of relevant
content or fulfillment of a communicative goal" (Hatim & Mason, 1990, p. 64).
He, in other words, should seek to achieve Nidas (1964) dynamic equivalence
through which a translation is designed to meet the requirement that the
relationship between the receptor and message should be substantially the same as
that which existed between the original receptors and the message (p.159). The
role of the translator, thus, is to recreate the authors intention in another culture in
such a way that enables the TC (Target Culture) reader to understand it clearly
(Baker, 1992).
The fulfillment of such a goal includes the deliberate and subtle tackling of
the figurative elements of a certain language. This is because such elements
contribute to the shaping of the intended effect. Among the figurative aspects of a
language which a translator should identify and comprehend their pragmatic
functions are rhetorical questions. These are questions which exhibit mixed
properties. They look like standard questions, but are neither used nor should be
interpreted as standard questions. When translating such questions, the translator is
expected to produce a translated rhetorical question that aims at achieving the
intended message and effect on the reader of the TL (Target Language).
The problem in translating such questions arises when translating a ST from a
language that is totally or partially different from that of the TL in its cultural
heritage. This difficulty is compounded when a text is of a sensitive nature. The
task becomes even heftier when the text is of a religious nature such as Hadith, the
second authoritative guide for Muslims. This is because the inaccurate
representation of the illocutionary force (i.e., rhetorical function) of any rhetorical
question may lead to failure in crystallizing the aim of the question and in
producing the intended effect on the TL reader. Consequently, the translation of
rhetorical questions in Hadith should be guided, supported, and strengthened by
theoretical as well as analytic-descriptive research specifically carried out to
investigate, evaluate, and improve the methods used (Ish-Shihri, 2007, p.1).
In spite of the sensitivity and importance of the above-mentioned problem

related to translating rhetorical questions in Hadith, none of the studies the
researcher reviewed discusses the issue of translating and evaluating the accuracy
of the translation of Hadith's rhetorical questions when translated from Arabic into
English. It is the need of dealing with this topic which has motivated a research
project on analyzing and assessing the translation of rhetorical questions in Hadith,
especially that the aspiration for a high level of excellence in academic research in
general, and in the translation of sensitive texts in particular, has recently been
emphasized by globalization and internationalism that mould life today.
1.2 Significance of the study

This study attempts to investigate whether functional equivalence could be
maintained in the translation of rhetorical questions in Hadith. It aims, as
mentioned earlier, at finding out the linguistic signals and strategies translators use
to convey the illocutionary force of Hadith's rhetorical questions when translating
them from Arabic into English. It also aims at evaluating the degree of adequacy in
the translation of selected rhetorical questions by three different translations of AnNawawi's Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous) (1992) according to the
perspective of functional equivalence.
The significance of the present study stems from the fact that it has a mixture
of theoretical, practical, and religious implications. In relation to the theoretical
significance, it is hoped that this study will contribute to our understanding of the
notion of functional equivalence in relation to translation. Assessing the translation
of rhetorical questions and commenting on their deviations will hopefully help in
explaining the belief of many linguists and translation practionaries that meanings
of utterances are something negotiated between producer and receiver rather than
being "a static entity, independent of human processing activity once it has been
encoded" (Hatim & Mason, 1990, p.65). It is also hoped that this study will add to
the existing literature on rhetorical questions and contribute to a better understating
of these rhetorical devices and their role in discourse. The study will also
contribute to the field of contrastive rhetoric as it shows the way Arabic and
English languages differ in the linguistic means used to express the illocutionary
force of the same rhetorical question.
From a practical perspective, the findings of this study will hopefully help
translation practitioners and students of translation in dealing with utterances that
are closely connected to their contexts. Instructors of languages and translation can
find out new methods and procedures that can help students achieve the best
translation of rhetorical questions in Hadith. Moreover, such a cross-cultural
analysis of rhetorical questions will be of value to the teaching of English language
functions to Arab students. This is because it is hoped that the present study will
indicate how Arabic and English differ in expressing the same rhetorical function.
Such an aim is in consonance with modern trends in socio-linguistics and learning

strategies of foreign languages, which assume that learners of a foreign language
must acquire not only syntax, phonology, and large number of words, but they
must also acquire the rules of language use.
As for the religious significance, discussing the functions and implied
meanings of rhetorical questions in Hadith will help both Muslims and nonMuslims better comprehend the Prophet's Hadiths when reading them, especially
that the syntactic form of interrogatives does not always match the pragmatic
function of questioning. Being written in English, the study will also enable nonArabic speaking people appreciate the linguistic perfection that arises from the use
of rhetorical questions in Hadith. The discussions and findings of this study will
probably manifest the eloquence of the Prophets speech and the efficacy of his
style in persuading and affecting the recipients. More significantly, it is hoped that
the findings of the study will provide Islamic institutions responsible for translating
and publishing Hadith books with some insights regarding the translators'
weaknesses and shortcomings in the translation of rhetorical questions, thus
yielding a better chance for improvement.
1.3 Statement of the problem

Equivalence in translation is to be achieved not only by lexical and syntactic
similarities (House, 2001; Fawcett, 1997). Most importantly, and usually
neglected, translators should aim at producing a TL text equivalent in its function

to that of the original. This is because functional equivalence is considered to be a
vital criterion for producing an accurate translation (El-Zeini, 1994).
To translators of Hadith, the achievement of lexical and syntactic equivalence
when translating rhetorical questions, which are considered to be the locutionary
part of an utterance, can be easily achieved (El-Zeini, 1994). Yet, the problem for
those translators is to perceive the illocutionary force of the original rhetorical
question, especially that the syntactic structure of questioning is used to perform
other communicative functions. It follows that the inadequacy in rendering the
illocutionary force of a rhetorical question will lead to failure in conveying the
messages of Hadith, and consequently failure in producing an equivalent effect on
the English text readers.
1.4 Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, it attempts to find out whether
translators of Hadith are capable of conveying the illocutionary force of Arabic
rhetorical questions when translating them into English and discussing the
strategies used to do so. Second, the study evaluates the degree of adequacy in the
translation of selected rhetorical questions by four translators. The quality of
translation is measured by the success or failure of the translators to convey the
functions of Arabic rhetorical questions into English. This is done by comparing
the translations to the original texts by the researcher and verifying the judgments
by three bilingual scholars experienced in Arabic and English (see section 3.2.2).
The present study adopts Mousas four levels of rhetorical questions (1995)
and is based on speech act theory as formulated by Austin (1962) and Searle
(1969). Though not specifically concerned with rhetorical questions, speech act
theory seems to be an appropriate one when dealing with rhetorical questions
because of two reasons: (1) it is mainly concerned with the functions of language
which are related to communicative intentions (the illocutionary force of an
utterance); (2) it focuses on utterances as acts whose illocutionary forces are
determined by the contexts of their occurrences (Badarneh, 2003).
Within the framework of speech act theory, a rhetorical question is considered
to be a clear manifestation of indirect speech acts (Searle, 1969). These are acts
whose forces differ from what is literally expressed in an utterance. Thus, "Could
you pass the salt, please?" is literally a question. The act of uttering it as a request
is then considered to be indirect. It follows that rhetorical questions, as a type of
indirect speech acts, have two different speech acts: (1) a speech act of asking a
question; and (2) a speech act of conveying either an assertive, directive,
expressive, representative, or commissive act (Searle, 1976; Badarneh, 2003). In
the light of this theory, a rhetorical question could be defined as a rhetorical tactic
that takes the form of a question which expects no answer and serves some further
figurative purpose (Kertzer, 1987).
More specifically, the study attempts to answer the following three questions:
1. Is it possible for translators of Hadith to achieve complete functional
equivalence when translating rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic into
English?
2. What are the linguistic signals and strategies used by translators to convey
the functions of rhetorical questions in Hadith when translating them into
English?
3. Which of the four translators under investigation is the best in achieving
functional equivalence in his translation of rhetorical questions in Hadith
from Arabic into English?
In general, the study aims to find out whether, how, and to what extent
functional equivalence could be achieved in the translation of Hadith's
rhetorical questions from Arabic into English.
1.5 Research hypotheses

This study attempts to verify the following null hypotheses which are derived
from the research questions mentioned above (see section 1.4):
1. It is possible for translators of Hadith to achieve complete functional

equivalence when translating rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic into
English.
2. There are no particular linguistic signals and strategies used by translators in
order to convey the functions of the original rhetorical questions when
translating them into English.
3. There is no difference between the four translators under investigation in
achieving functional equivalence when translating Hadith's rhetorical
questions from Arabic into English.
1.6 Delimitations of the study

The present study is limited to the assessment of rhetorical questions in
Hadith according to the perspective of functional equivalence. Moreover, the study
limits itself to the Arabic/English translation of rhetorical questions in Hadith,
where the ST is Arabic and the TT is English. The study deals only with selected
examples of rhetorical questions which occur in An-Nawawi's Riyad-us-Saliheen
(Gardens of the Righteous)(1992), as surveying rhetorical questions in the various
books of Hadith is a task beyond the researcher's abilities. Finally, the phenomenon
labeled rhetorical questions covers a wide range of rhetorical meanings. Yet, the
data extracted represents only seventeen meanings mentioned in section 3.1.
1.7 Definition of terms
Functional equivalence:
the "rendering of the source language text's
pragmatic meaning into a target language text in line with target language
expectancy norms" (Emery, 2004, p.149).
Indirect speech acts: acts whose forces differ from what is literally
expressed in an utterance (Searle, 1976).
Pragmatics: the study of the purposes for which sentences are used, and of
the real world conditions under which a sentence may be appropriately used as an
utterance (Stalnaker, 1972).
Rhetorical question: a grammatically interrogative sentence but is not
intended to gain information. Rather, it aims to produce a particular effect on the
hearer/reader (Bedarneh, 2003).
Speech act: a type of utterances conceived as an act by which the speaker
does something (Matthews, 1997). Austin (1962) defines it as "the sort of act one
performs in uttering a sentence" (p.12).
Speech act theory: a theory based on the assumption that "the minimal unit
of human communication is not a sentence or other expression, but rather the
performance of certain kinds of acts, such as making statements, asking questions,
giving orders, describing, explaining, apologizing, thanking, congratulating, etc."
(Searle, Kiefer, & Bierwisch, 1980, p.31).
CHAPTER TWO
Review of Related Literature
The aim of this chapter is to present a review of the literature on the
translation of rhetorical questions from Arabic into English according to the
perspective of functional equivalence, so as to derive insights from works done by
previous researchers. This will hopefully enable the researcher to place the
proposed work in the right perspective and will also highlight those aspects in
which previous research is lacking. The literature is reviewed according to the
following six aspects:
2.5 Hadith's translation quality assessment

The notion of functional equivalence is undoubtedly one of the most
problematic and controversial areas in the field of translation theory. This notion
has been analyzed, evaluated, and extensively discussed from different points of
view and has been approached from many different perspectives.
One of the earliest attempts to deal with the aspect of functional equivalence
is that of Nida (1964). Driven by the assumption that translating is communicating,
Nida proposes his theory of dynamic equivalence. The major assumption of this
theory is that "the relationship between receptor and message should be
substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the
message" (p.159). Nida states that the focus should be on the receptor's response,
without whom the communication process would be incomplete. It follows that the
criteria for evaluating a translation are no longer based on comparing the original
text to the translated one, but on the success of the translated text to achieve an
effect on its receptors similar to that of the original receptors. Yet, Nida asserts that
the translator is not free to add extra information to the text. What he/she is
allowed to do is simply changing the manner in which the information is revealed
such as making explicit what is linguistically implicit in the original text. Although
Nida works exclusively on religious translation, he claims that the results can be
generalized to all kinds of translation.
Obviously, the main concern of Nida (1964) is the target audiences response
rather than the relationship between the ST and the TT. In other words, the major
drawback of this assumption is that the conception of equivalence is not based on
a relation of identity between ST message and TT message, but on a relation of

identity between a TT combination of receiver and message and a ST combination
of receiver and message (Inani, 2004, p.6). Another drawback that can be
mentioned is that Nidas work is strongly associated with one type of translation
(i.e., religious translation). This has been inspiring for many studies written on
Bible translation but at the same time led other researchers to seek more inclusive
frameworks.
Many studies (House, 1977; Widdowson , 1979; and Hatim and Mason, 1990)
stress the fact that the situational context is a vital criterion to be considered when
dealing with the notion of functional equivalence. The achievement of equivalence
is based on investigating the intentions of the writer within a given social setting.
One of the earliest studies that points to the importance of context is that of House
(1977). In the first edition of her book, which is her PhD dissertation, House
addresses in detail the issue of functional equivalence. She argues that the ST and
the TT should match one another in function. To do so, every text should be placed
within its situational dimensions, which have to be correctly identified and taken
into account by the translator. She adds that if the ST and the TT differ
substantially on situational features, then they are not functionally equivalent. In
other words, "a translation text should not only match its source text in function,
but employ equivalent situational-dimensional means to achieve that function"

(p.49).
Widdowson (1979) also stresses the point that functional equivalence could
not be achieved when context, whether linguistic within the discourse or extralinguistic within the situation, is ignored. Only when context is taken into account
an utterance can be interpreted as indicating a particular message or a
communicative act. Diagrammatically, translation would involve the following
processes:
Rhetorical deep structure (pragmatic representations)
SL surface forms
TL surface forms
Grammatical deep structure (semantic representations)

(adopted from Widdowson,1979, p.168)
Widdowson (1979) argues that it is the rhetorical deep structure which is
responsible for the pragmatic representations. If one follows this rhetorical deep
structure, he/she would know how communicative acts are realized in formally
different ways in the SL (Source Language) and TL.
To Widdowson (1979), the notion of equivalence could be viewed from
different perspectives depending on the model of linguistic description used in the
translation process. Structural equivalence, for example, is one which accounts for
the similarity between the surface structures of sentences in the two languages
involved. Yet, according to Widdowson, such kind of equivalence could not
account for the communicative or functional value of utterances. On the one hand,
it might assign grammatical equivalence to forms which have different
communicative functions. On the other hand, it might deny equivalence to certain
forms
which
have
the
same
communicative
value.
In
such
cases,
pragmatic/functional equivalence would be the solution. It is the kind of

equivalence which relates surface forms to their communicative function as
utterances. It deals with the "illocutionary effect of utterances" (p.105).
Similar to the views of House (1977) and Widdowson (1979), Hatim and
Mason (1990) find that a translator, when aiming at achieving functional
adequacy, should consider "the oral mode of discourse, involving a speaker, a
hearer, and a situation of utterance" (p.63). This is because it is perfectly
possible for a translator to translate adequately the locutionary act involved in
an utterance (i.e., finding equivalent ST words and relating them correctly in
TL syntax). Yet, he/she might fail to perceive or might misrepresent the
illocutionary force of the utterance in context.
Hatim and Mason (1990) also give an interesting insight in the adequacy
of using the term equivalence. They argue that there is a problem in the use of
the term 'equivalence' in connection with translation. This is because complete
functional equivalence is not an achievable goal. They add that the use of this
term is usually intended in a relative sense, which means the closest possible
meaning to the ST meaning. Therefore, they argue that the term 'adequacy' is
much better to be used than the term 'equivalence' when translating ST
functions.
Simply put, the views of House (1977), Widdowson (1979), and Hatim
and Mason (1990) call for considering speech acts in context and not in
isolation. The aim of a translator should be the representation of the
predominate force of the text. In other words, no evaluation of the
appropriateness of an act in a sequence can be carried out without a clear
perception of the context and its inherent norms (Ferrara, 1980, p.241).
As for the issue of reconstructing adequately the functions of the original
text when translating them to a second language, Bell (1991) suggests that any
translator should consider Searle's two parts of any speech act. The first is the
propositional content which refers to the literal meaning (i.e., semantic sense)
or the locutionary act. The second is the illocutionary force which refers to the
communicative value the speaker intends the act to have (i.e., communicative
function). Such communicative functions could be indicated in translation by
using some function-indicating devices such as word order, mood in verbs, and
the use of performative verbs as apologize, assert, or deny. According to Bell,
the problem for the translator is to create equivalents between the two
languages involved, especially that "there is often [italics added] a mismatch
between 'sentence meaning' (locutionary force; literal meaning; semantic sense)
on the one hand and 'utterance meaning' (illocutionary force; indirect meaning;
communicative value) on the other" (p.178). Yet, to Bell, there is some hope for
the translator to replicate the propositional content of a text as there is a
universality of the speech act at the propositional level. However, a translator
would find much greater difficulty to preserve the writer's intentions (i.e.,
illocutionary force) of the original text. It follows that the focus when
translating should shift from transferring the content only to acquiring the skills
required to interpret and convey a text's communicative functions.
Baker (1992) also presents an interesting discussion of the notion of
equivalence. According to her, and in relation to the translation process,
equivalence is of four types: lexical, grammatical, textual, and functional. The
latter is concerned with the implicature, which is not what is explicitly said but
what is implied. A translator, therefore, needs to discover the implied meanings
in the ST and try to get these messages across. This entails that the role of the
translator is to recreate the author's intention in another culture in such a way
that enables the TT reader to understand it clearly.
Bells (1991) and Bakers (1992) views are obviously more ST-oriented
than Nidas dynamic equivalence (1964). They rely heavily on some
conceptions of linguistic equivalence (i.e., equivalence of structure, meaning,
message, and contextual relevance). In some ways, these two views stress the
requirement that a translation should be in some way(s) identical to its original.
In addition, it can be easily noticed from the studies of Bell and Baker that the
communicative functions of utterances could be indicated in translation. The
ways of doing so vary. It might be by using explicit performative clues or
linguistic signals as certain words or intonation. Yet, no indication is given by
the researchers to whether the method of using certain function-indicating
devices is applicable and effective with the translation of all text types
including religious texts as Hadith.
On the basis of Nida's theory of dynamic/functional equivalence, Chang
(1996) suggests a more descriptive theory for achieving equivalent effect. He
assumes that it is not only the actual facts mentioned in the original text which
should be considered carefully. Rather, there are other factors that would
contribute to the theory of equivalent effect. These include the different types
of texts, the degree of dynamic equivalence the translator would choose, and
whether the translator decides to reflect his personality in his translation. In
other words, Chang believes that the major contribution of a translator is to
produce the effect intended by the original author. The translation of a work of
art, for instance, should preserve the artistic value of the original such as style,
atmosphere, and themes.
In a later work, and in an attempt to provide translation criticism with a
scientifically-based foundation, House (1997) presents a functional pragmatic
model of translation evaluation. The model is mainly based on the belief that
syntactic and lexical similarities alone fail to achieve equivalence in translation.
They can not explain the appropriate use of language in communication. Hence,
House stresses the fact that:
It is obvious that equivalence can not be linked to formal, syntactic, and
lexical similarities alone because any two linguistic items in two
different languages are multiply ambiguous, and because languages cut
up reality in different ways. This is why functional, pragmatic
equivalence -a concept which has been accepted in contrastive linguistics
for a long time- is the type of equivalence which is most appropriate for
describing relations between original and translation. (p.26)
House's model (1997) is used to analyze and compare the original and the
translated texts on the basis of three different levels: Language/Text, Register
(Field, Mode, and Tenor) and Genre. Language/Text is concerned with the idea
that translation is a recontextualization of a text in the original language by a
semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the TT. This requires the
translator to consider the text in its particular context of situation or situational
dimensions. Field captures social activity, the subject matter or the topic. Mode,
on the other hand, refers to the channel (spoken or written) while Tenor refers
to the nature of the participants (the addresser and the addressees), and the
relationship between them. Finally, Genre connects texts with the cultural
community in which texts are embedded. House claims that for a translation of
an optimal quality, there should be a match of the above-mentioned levels in
the ST and TT. It is worth noting that House (2001) asserts that though the
model presented enables the evaluator to make his/her judgments explicit, the
final judgment of quality must contain a subjective component. This is because
assessors differ in their preferences and judgments of certain criteria.
The criticism on House's model (1997) is that it is specifically designed to
discover mismatches between ST and TT (Zequan, 2008, p.29). It ignores
the positive aspects in translation. Zequan also mentions that it is still doubtful
if the model can recover authorial intention and ST function from register
analysis (p.30).
According to her functionalist approach, Schaffner (1997) emphasizes the
belief that translation is not the replacement of words or grammatical structures
with equivalent ones found in the TL. Rather, it is a communicative activity
through which texts are dealt with in a situation in which they fulfill a specific
function. In other words, a 'pragmatically adequate' or 'functionally appropriate'
translation, according to Schaffner, is one which "fulfills the expectations of the
TT addressees in a particular communicative situation" (p.2). To that end,
Schaffner believes that translation quality assessment from a functionalist
perspective should pay great attention to the purposes of the ST. These purposes
should effectively fulfill their roles in the TC. This entails that a translator who
follows Schaffner's functionalist approach has a more influential role than in the
more traditional approaches to translation. He/She should have a good knowledge
not only of the foreign language, but also of the functions of texts and how to
transfer their effects. Only with such a type of knowledge a translator can produce
a TT "that is appropriately structured and formulated in order to effectively fulfill
its intended purpose [italics added] for its addressees" (p.3).
The problem with Schaffners approach (1997) is that it is based on the
assumption that the functions of a ST can be adapted to suit the target audience.
Accordingly, the translator is free to be selective when it comes to the context of
the text. He can present what serves his purpose and leave out others which do not
serve the purpose. Besides, this approach assumes that having different audiences
necessitates the changing and modification of the function of the TT while this is
not true in all cases.
As opposed to the previous models, there are some models found in the
literature that can be considered comprehensive as they include as many aspects as
can be plus a certain emphasis given to the pragmatic level. One of these models is
that of Al-Qinai (2000). In an attempt to replace the intuitive judgment of
translation quality assessment with an objective, textually-based assessment of the
TT, Al-Qinai develops an empirical model for translation quality assessment based
primarily on the concept of functional equivalence. He assumes that the total
correspondence of the translated text to the functions of the original is impossible.
Yet, what a translator can do is to set his/her objectives in how to approach the text
(author-centered, text-centered, or reader-centered). For instance, the translator
should focus on the reader if he/she is translating an advertisement, so as to reflect
adequately the effective function (i.e., appeal or evoke) of the original text. In other
words, the translator should consider the illocutionary force of the ST and try to
render this force properly according to the TL rules and norms. Empirically
speaking, when the suggested model is used to judge the degree of functional
equivalence of an evocative text (an advertisement of an Austin Rover brochure for
the 1989 Metro Sport model) translated from English into Arabic, Al-Qinai finds
that the use of longer and more cohesive sentences changes the pragmatic function
of the original text from that of persuasion to a text of a more directive nature.
From his findings, the researcher reaches the conclusion that "the role of target
language is not simply to recast source text in another language, but to function as
an effective medium in the target language environment" (p.516).
Though Al-Qinais model (2000) is comprehensive as it enables a translator
to deal with all translation problems, its evaluation is not based on a comparison
between ST and TT. As Nida (1964), Al-Qinai gives priority to the audiences
responses over the content of the ST. Accordingly, this model can not be applied to
religious texts as it allows for the manipulation of the content of the ST for the
sake of producing an effective TT.
Noticing the major problems related to functional equivalence, Abdel-Hafiz
(2003) stresses the fact that certain problems related to functional equivalence arise
as a result of two things: (1) the translator's ignorance of contextual factors (i.e.,
linguistic and situational context) when translating a text. He believes that the
surrounding linguistic elements can be helpful in indicating the meaning of the
intended message. Similarly, the situational context can be used as an instrument
for identifying the intended message of the original text; (2) the translator's
ignorance of major pragmatic principles such as speech acts, the Politeness
Principle and its six maxims, conventional implicature and presupposition.
Neglecting such pragmatic principles in translation leads to deviations in
presenting the functions of the original text. When applying his findings to the
translation of one of Naguib Mahfouz's most famous novels The Thief and the
Dogs, Abdel-Hafiz finds that the ignorance of the above-mentioned pragmatic

principles permeates the novel's translation. It distorts the literary work under
investigation and reduces the reader's enjoyment. Hence, he concludes by
emphasizing the importance of context and certain pragmatic concepts and
principles in solving translational problems at the pragmatic level. They have
proven to be instrumental in determining the intended meaning of the text and
useful means for creating equivalences.
Emery's (2004) pragmatic theory of translation is based mainly on the belief
that functional equivalence is one of the major goals a translator should set out to
attain. According to him, the focus on linguistic equivalence should be shifted to
that of "language in action paradigm" (p.148). In other words, there should be an
emphasis on rendering adequately the communicative purpose of the original text
to the target reader/listener with the goal of achieving sameness in receptor's
response in ST/TT audiences. Within this pragmatic theory of translation, a new
role of the translator is expected. To achieve equal effects and responses from TT
readers, a translator should not restrict his attention to the referential meanings of
the original sentences and/or utterances. He/She should rather pay a great attention
to "the additional meaning behind face-value interpretation of utterances" (p.151).
To Emery, the translation process is thus a double negotiation consisting of two
phases: (1) interpretation of the pragmatic meaning of the ST; and (2) rendering
such pragmatic meaning effectively into the TT. In sum, a translator who follows
Emery's theory, as opposed to that of Al-Qinai (2000), should be loyal to the ST
author's intention as much as possible.
In sum, all of the above studies indicate that there should be sameness on the
effect produced on the TT reader as that on the reader of the ST. Yet, the studies
discussed thus far indicate that the terms that have been used to designate that type
of equivalence vary. They are the principle of similar or equivalent response or
effect (Schaffner, 1997; Emery, 2004), and dynamic equivalence (Nida, 1964). Not
until (1977), when House published her PhD did the term functional or pragmatic
equivalence gain currency.

Real and rhetorical questions have the same grammatical interrogative form.
They start with question words and end with question marks. Yet, real and
rhetorical questions differ in their purpose. If it is a real question, the purpose of
posing the question is to gain an answer while the purpose of posing rhetorical
questions is some thing other than gaining answers (i.e., usually a rhetorical
function is implied).
Arabic rhetorical questions have a wide range of purposes, particularly the
language of the Holy Quran. Foda (1953) proposes eleven primary meanings and
about fourteen secondary meanings of Arabic interrogatives. He attributes the
differences between the two to elements of context such as the speaker, the
addressee, and addressee's state. To Foda, the eleven primary meanings are:
(testing) , ( denial),
( negation),
(intensification), ( orders), ( wishing),
(assertion) ,
(arousing interest),
showing amiability), ( glorification), and ( degradation). Other

secondary meanings include ( astonishment), ( threatening), and
(sarcasm).
Ba'albaki (1992) defines a rhetorical question as:
" :"
(p.787)
'A rhetorical question: a question used to produce an effect, not to get an
answer.'
Abbas (1998) differentiates between the various interrogative particles. He
lists seven principles for the bound morpheme 'hamza' and four principles for the
free morpheme 'hal'. He also mentions eighteen rhetorical meanings for the
interrogatives and remarks that the classification is not exclusive as there are others
to be understood within context and further ones with a merge of meanings.
Khashuqji (1999) investigates certain changes that occur in the interrogatives
of Standard Arabic (SA) when compared to Classical Arabic (CA). Rhetorical
interrogatives are analyzed and compared on the basis of Foda's model of Arabic
interrogatives because, according to Khashuqji, "his study covers the whole Quran
and seizes accepted descriptions of traditional grammar" (p.1).
The body of data used in Khashuqji's study (1999) is a collection of
interrogatives taken from the Holy Quran, Hadiths in Al-Lu lu wal-Marjan, and
collection of weekly Press Files (an exclusive service by the Public Relation
Department of Tihama Press for their subscribers to keep them well-informed of
general and specialized subjects of interest). The CA and the SA data of this study
are computerized for descriptions and comparison. Similarities and differences
between CA and SA interrogatives are compared by using statistical analysis. It is
found that Arabic interrogatives serve two purposes: (1) confirmation and/or
conception at the morphological level; and (2) real or rhetorical purpose at the
syntactic level.
In relation to the first purpose, confirmation consists of the free morpheme
'hal'. Conception, on the other hand, consists of the bound morpheme 'hamza' and
one of the nine free morphemes: ( which),
( what), ( who), ( how
much/many), ( how), ( wherefrom? Why is it that?), ( where),

(when), and ( when). As for the second purpose, Khashuqji points out that real
interrogatives are those in which the structural type of questioning conforms with
the functional one. On the other hand, rhetorical interrogatives are those where the
structural type of questioning does not conform with the purpose of seeking
information. Khashuqji stresses the fact that the syntactic form of interrogatives
does not always match the pragmatic function of questioning. A function largely
depends on the context of an utterance. Another major conclusion that the
researcher reaches is that the distribution of rhetorical functions in the two Arabic
varieties (i.e., CA and SA) is similar to a great extent.
Still, a similar view to that of Abbas (1998) is that of Yusif (2000). By
analyzing the rhetorical functions of the interrogative structure in the Holy Quran,
he claims that the rhetorical function of any rhetorical question is to be identified
only by analyzing the context in which it occurs. He also lists fourteen rhetorical
meanings for the interrogatives of the Holy Quran. These are:
( boasting), ( assertion),
( wishing),
( indicating
impatience), ( intimidation and exaggeration), ( chiding),

( negation) , ( astonishment) , ( degradation) ,( indicating
improbability) , ( lamentation and wailing), ( scolding).
It is worth noting here that there is always an overlap among these rhetorical
functions. It is hard to find a rhetorical question that is purely expressive or
informative. Most rhetorical questions include more than one function with an
emphasis on a particular one according to its context of situation. In short, the
decision of choosing the most prominent function depends on the context in which
a given question occurs.
Badarneh (2003) presents an analysis of the formal and functional properties

of Quranic rhetorical questions. On the basis of 809 rhetorical questions used in 95
chapters of the Quran, the researcher emphasizes the broader communicative role
of the rhetorical question in discourse. He assumes that a rhetorical question serves
not only as an assertion, but also as a directive and expressive speech act. The
researcher also shows through his analysis the correlation between form and
function in the Quranic text, and lists "the lexical and syntactic means that have
affinity to the pragmatics of Quranic rhetorical question" (p.2). To do so, the forms
and patterns of Quranic rhetorical questions are examined on the basis of the
different interrogative pronouns used to introduce the rhetorical question.
Throughout the analysis, Badarneh states the following major conclusions:
(1) There is a strong form-function correlation displayed in the rhetorical
questions investigated.
(2) Any rhetorical question that occurs in Quran encodes two speech acts, a
primary assertion and a context-induced one.
(3) Arabic rhetorical questions perform a variety of discursive functions and
have a significant role in the arguments and dialogues of the text.
(4) The use of rhetorical questions in the Quran is intended to serve as a
persuasion and a politeness strategy.
(5) A number of indicators or clues for the identification of an interrogative

utterance as a rhetorical question are found in the Quran. Some of these are the
context in which the question is uttered, the syntactic structure of the question, the
co-occurrence of two particles/pronouns with the same interrogative function, and
the propositional content or semantic structure (Badarneh, 2003).
The different text-types used in the studies of the researchers strengthen the
idea that translators may frequently encounter rhetorical questions in most texts.
Accordingly, it is obligatory for a translator to grasp this topic in his SL first in
order to be able to deal with it in the TL.

By and large, linguists seem to agree on the definition of rhetorical questions.
Hornby (1974) defines a rhetorical question as "one asked for the sake of effect, to
impress people, no answer being needed or expected" (p.727). Sykes (1976), on the
other hand, defines a rhetorical question as one "asked not for information but to
produce effect" (p.965). Similarly, Larson (1984) defines rhetorical questions as
those used to "indicate interrogative grammatical forms which are used with a nonquestion meaning" (p.234).
Larson (1984) provides a detailed analysis of the purposes of rhetorical
questions in English with illustrative examples. According to her, the major
purposes of rhetorical questions in English are the following:
(1) To make a friendly suggestion as in 'Mary, why dont you wash the
dishes?' The use of the word 'why' is a means of suggesting the action to be
performed by the receiver (i.e., washing the dishes).
(2) To show rebuke as in 'When are you going to empty the garbage?' The
question is used as a means of rebuke for the delay of doing the duty (i.e.,
empty the garbage).
(3) To emphasize a known fact as when a teacher says to a lazy student
'How can I pass you if you do not turn in your assignment?'
(4) To reflect impatience as in 'When are you coming?' which might imply
the meaning of 'come right now!'
(5) To introduce a new topic as when a speaker initiated his discussion by
a question as 'Why is there so much unemployment these days?'
(6) To admonish or exhort as when a mother tries to stop the child from
bothering his grandfather saying 'why are you always bothering grandfather?'
(7) To show surprise as in 'Are they here soon?' said in a situation of early
arrival of expected guests.
(8) To make a positive invitation as in 'Would you like to drink a cup of
tea?'
(9) To show politeness as when a speaker requests to leave saying 'May I
leave?'
(10) To criticize as in 'Why did you come?' which implies the meaning of
'You should not have come' (p.234-38).
In an attempt to provide a pragmatic framework for the identification,
description, and interpretation of English rhetorical questions as they occur in
everyday English spoken and written discourse, IIie (1994) proposes a
theoretical framework for analyzing the types and functions of rhetorical
questions. This proposed theoretical framework is applied to the discursive and
argumentative functions of several types of discourse, such as talk shows,
parliamentary debates, journalese, advertising, political speeches, and cartoon
interactions. One of the major conclusions that IIie arrives at is that English
rhetorical questions constitute a special category of questions, which are neither
answerless nor unanswerable. To that end, the researcher characterizes English
rhetorical questions by their 'multifunctionality'. This refers to the capacity of
English rhetorical questions to fulfill more than one communicative function at
a time. By their questioning form, all rhetorical questions have the common
communicative function of challenge. Yet, they also "fulfill at the same time
one or several more discursive functions, such as a reproach, a warning, an
objection, a promise, a self exculpation, an accusation, etc." (p. 46).
Similarly, Al-Malik (1995) lists four principal functions of rhetorical
questions in English. These are:
(1) A statement of certitude: these are rhetorical questions which

express the fact that the speaker is sure of what he is saying. A simple
example is the rhetorical question 'shall he not clothe you?' which is
equivalent to the assertion of 'he will certainly clothe you'.
(2) A statement of incertitude: these are rhetorical questions which
express the function of doubt, perplexity, and uncertainty. For instance, if
the question 'what shall we eat?' is uttered by a member of a family
circle, it would be equivalent to the statement 'we do not know what we
will eat.'
(3) A statement of evaluation or obligation: these are questions used to
express statements of approval or disapproval. In such cases, the
interrogative form is used as a more polite and less direct way to rebuke
or command. The question 'why are you fearful?' means 'you should not
be afraid' or 'do not be afraid'.
(4) To introduce a new subject or a new aspect of a subject: these are
rhetorical questions used to introduce, conclude, explain, or answer a
preceding discussion. For example, a speaker might start his topic of
talking about his family by uttering 'who is my mother? And who is my
brother?' (Al-Malik ,1995, p.140).
Al-Malik (1995) points out that the above-mentioned four functions of

rhetorical questions in English could be elaborated by including those functions
suggested by Wilson and Sperber (1988). These are the following (as cited in
Al-Malik, 1995, p. 142):
(1) Exam questions: since examiners usually know more about the
subject than do examinees, an exam question would not be considered as
a real question (i.e., a request of information) but rather to assess the
candidate's attempt to answer.
(2) Expository questions: these are questions that the speaker asks in
order to arouse the audience's interest in an answer he already plans to
say. For example, a speaker who initiates his topic by saying 'What are
the objectives of this analysis? First,..' is actually trying to stimulate and
motivate his addressee at an answer he already knows.
(3) Speculative questions: these are questions that the speaker utters in
an attempt to elicit the addressee's opinion regarding a certain topic as in
'Now, who is going to win the by-election tomorrow?'
(4) Guess questions: these are questions where the speaker already
knows the answer. Yet, the hearer can only guess the answer (i.e., there
is no way through which the hearer knows the exact answer). A clear
example of that type of rhetorical questions is a father who is playing
with his child by holding a coin in his closed fist and placing his hands
behind his back saying 'which hand is it in?'
(5) Surprise questions: these are questions which express the hearer's
surprise to the information which has just been given. For example:
Allan: The president has resigned.
Sara: God heavens! Has he?
Sara's utterance of the rhetorical question "has he" is undoubtedly not a
request for information which she has just been given. Intuitively, it expresses
her surprise to the information given by Allan.
Hervey (1998) uses the phrase "illocutionary functions" to describe the
rhetorical aspects of utterances which have supposed intentions. They are
things that people do in making utterances. It follows that a distinction should
be made between grammatical form and pragmatic use (i.e., rhetorical
function). Hervey claims that utterances of 'have you read this book?' are
interrogative in grammatical form, but they do not all have the same
illocutionary function of eliciting information. They might be used either to
elicit information from an interlocutor, to patronize, belittle, or even to
embarrass. Hervey also raises the issue of culture-specificity and cross-cultural
non-transferability of illocutionary functions. He assumes that deciding the
illocutionary function an utterance would fulfill in a particular context would
depend on the culture in which this utterance is uttered. He states that "what
Hungarians do with utterances in performing that act designated as 'felk
sznteni', though it may partially overlap with 'toasting someone's health', is
simply not the kind of thing people do in British culture" (p.13). In short, the
illocutionary functions of utterances are differently conceived and differently
performed in different cultures.
Noting the problems that arise from typically associating English
rhetorical questions with single negative answers, Rohde (2006) assumes that
rhetorical questions in English would have different types of answers. These
are:
(1) Negative answer: Who lifted a finger to help?
(2) Positive answer: Has the educational system been so watered down
that anybody who is above average is now gifted?
(3) Non-null answer: Who always shows up late to class?
(4) Multiple answers: What's going to happen to these kids when they
grow up?
According to Rohde (2006), answering any English rhetorical question,
using one of the above-mentioned four types of answers, requires that discourse
participants share a prior commitment "to similar, obvious, and often extreme
answers" (p.135). It follows that rhetorical questions are neither information-
seeking like regular questions nor information providing like statements.

Rather, they are used to "synchronize discourse participants' commitments,
confirming their shared beliefs about the world" (p.135). The addressee, Rohde
concludes, may respond to a rhetorical question if: (1) the rhetorical purpose
was misunderstood; (2) the question was an exam-question; or (3) the response
conforms to the intention of the rhetorical question.
It is clear from the definitions of rhetorical questions in Arabic and
English that these two languages correspond in terms of their major
characteristics of rhetorical questions. The components of similarity can be
summarized into two points: (1) the non-expectation of an answer; and (2) the
effect being made on the listener.

For the last twenty-five years or so, a number of cross-cultural linguistic
studies have been devoted to the difficulties of translating rhetorical questions
from one language into another. In fact, most of these approaches do not
normally adhere to any particular theory of language.
Larson (1974) states that the communicative situation is one of the
elements that should be taken into account in the process of translating
rhetorical questions from one language into another. He emphasizes the
importance of considering "how the communication situation and the attitude of
the speaker relate to the grammatical forms used" (p.14). This is because such
consideration, according to Larson, would provide "a more careful analysis of
the ST for translation purposes" (p.14).
The obvious advantage of that study is that it is based on the inseparable
relation between form and content. Making this concurrence obvious in the
study supports the functional perspective. This perspective emphasizes the fact
that language is interpreted as a system of meanings expressed by forms
through which the meanings are realized (Halliday, 1973). Accordingly, any
separation is to be made between form and content is not valid.
A careful analysis of the speakers intent for rhetorical questions in the
Greek text of the New Testament is presented by Beekman and Callow (1979).
They classify Greek rhetorical questions into five main groups according to
function: (1) to make a statement of certitude; (2) to make a statement of
incertitude, contingency, or deliberation; (3) to make a statement of evaluation;
(4) to give a command; and (5) to introduce a new topic or highlight some new
aspects of a topic. Through their analysis, Beekman and Callow emphasize the
fact that the translator needs to look for special linguistic signals that occur with
the TL rhetorical questions.
Beekman and Callow (1979) find out that there are two types of
misrepresentation:
(1) A rhetorical question is interpreted as a real question: the reader

assumes that the addresser seeks unknown information when a rhetorical
question is interpreted as a real one.
(2) The meaning of a rhetorical question is misunderstood: the reader may
still be misleaded by the use of the question form even if a question is correctly
understood to be rhetorical.
To Beekman and Callow (1979), three possibilities are there for rendering
a rhetorical question, depending on the contextual factors in the SL and on the
specific rhetorical features of rhetorical questions in the TL. These are: (1) a
question without an answer, including a tag question; (2) a question followed
by an answer; and (3) a direct statement.
Ilie (1993) examines three Swedish translations of the English text
Pygmalion. The main error found in the Swedish TTs with respect to rhetorical
questions is that different constructions are used when rendering the English ST
to Swedish (e.g., a declarative, an imperative, an exclamatory sentence, or a
declarative question). Alternatively, a non-rhetorical question or a declarative
sentence in the ST is rendered as a rhetorical question in the TT.
Moving to studies that have been conducted in the translation of rhetorical
questions which occurred in the Holy Quran, one could find that Mousas
study (1995) has a similar view to that of Larson (1974) when it comes to the
inspirable relation between form and content. Through examples taken from the
Holy Quran, literary works, and daily newspapers, Mousa investigates the best
approach to be used in the translation of rhetorical questions from Arabic into
English. She demonstrates the purposes of rhetorical questions in both
languages, and provides analytical and synthetic comments on the examples
cited in her work. Throughout her analysis, Mousa finds that the best approach
to the translation of rhetorical questions is the eclectic approach. The translator
is the one who should decide which approach to be used according to the
context in which the rhetorical question occurs. In other words, according to
Mousa, there is no single best approach to translate rhetorical questions from
Arabic into English. Rather, translators should be selective in the sense that
they have to choose the reasonable approach (i.e., communicative versus
semantic, literal versus free, form versus content, and faithful versus beautiful)
in accordance with its suitability to its context of situation. Mousa also finds
that for an effective rendering of the intended message, the four levels of
rhetorical questions should be identified, as they play a significant role in the
comprehension of the original rhetorical question and in the production of the
target rhetorical question. These levels are:
(1) The syntactic level: which has to do with the grammatical factors
of the overall form of a given rhetorical question (i.e., its interrogative
form).
(2) The semantic level: this has to do with the apparent and intended
meaning of a rhetorical question.
(3) The pragmatic level: this has to do with the secondary purposes of
rhetorical questions as surprise, rebuke, criticism, etc.
(4) The aesthetic level: this has to do with the use of interrogative
forms instead of statements, commands, or other forms of language as
interrogatives appeal more to senses.
Mousa (1995) concludes by stating that most of these levels are neglected
when translating rhetorical questions from Arabic into English. According to
her, most translated verses, in which rhetorical questions are represented, are
transferred on the basis of their denotative meanings and apparent grammatical
forms. Translators disregard to a large extent the connotations and functional
value, either due to their lack of knowledge or for the sake of ease.
Mousas study (1995) has the advantage of being generalized to different
text-types (i.e., the Holy Quran, literary works, and daily newspapers).
According to Chang (1996), a better general theory of equivalent effect can be
built by taking into account the particular problems of different text-types
(p.14). Yet, the study lacks the quantitative dimension which is, according to
Brunette (2000) and Williams (2001), an essential part of translation quality
assessment. Furthermore, the study is not coherently unified as it combines
more than one principle: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and aesthetic
equivalence. There is no one particular approach to which each of these levels
contributes.
Al-Malik (1995) considers the appropriate methods that a translator can
adopt when translating the secondary meanings of Quranic perforamtive
utterances. The perforamtive utterances discussed in his study are of five types:
imperative, negative imperative, interrogative, vocative, and wish. In relation to
interrogative, Al-Malik points out that their forms may deviate from the basic
meaning of requesting information to meanings which can be understood from
the context. Once the interrogative form deviates from its basic meaning, the
question is not meant to be answered. Rather, it would serve a rhetorical
purpose of imparting or calling attention to information but not eliciting it.
Empirically speaking, and in order to limit the scope of the study to a
manageable corpus, the researcher presents an evaluation of five English
translations of the Holy Qur'ans rhetorical questions, assessing each translation
on the basis of whether it conveys the illocutionary function of the original (i.e.,
the rhetorical purpose of the Arabic text). Al-Malik concludes that the
problematic secondary meanings of the interrogative form when it comes to

translation are eight. These are: improbability, fascination, negative imperative,
scorn, exaltation, wish, affirmation, and disaffirmation. He also indicates that
assessing the rhetorical meaning of an interrogative form would most probably
depend on its situational context. Moreover, Al-Malik finds that the use of the
interrogative form to indicate its basic meaning is very infrequent in the Qur'an
since this is impossible in the case of Allah who knows everything (p.223). It
follows that the dominant use of interrogatives in the Qur'an is not for real but
rather for rhetorical purposes. As for the strategies used for translating the
secondary meanings of Quranic performative utterances, Al-Malik lists the
following:
Strategy (1): maintenance of both basic and secondary meanings of the
Arabic in the English translation.
Strategy (2): maintenance of the distinction between the basic and the
secondary meanings in the English translation, but substituting the Arabic basic
meaning with a different basic meaning in English.
Strategy (3): abandonment of the distinction between the basic and the
secondary meaning in the English translation such as using the basic meaning
in English to convey the secondary meaning of the Arabic verse.
The last two studies mentioned above (Mousa, 1995; Al-Malik, 1995)
present useful discussions on the issue of the translation of rhetorical questions.
The two provide linguistic analysis that helps to identify the errors and
sometimes to offer alternative translations. Yet, it might be argued that the
investigation of the two studies is not placed within any broader theoretical
framework. Such a theoretical framework is needed so that each point discussed
can be related to this framework. There are, however, other studies which are
based on certain linguistic theories within which their evaluation is conducted.
These are discussed in the coming section.
2.5 Hadith's translation quality assessment

The turn is now given to the studies that have been conducted on the
evaluation of the translations of Hadith in order to highlight what models have
been proposed for evaluating these translations and what kind of translation
problems have been identified.
To the researchers best knowledge, only two studies (El-Zeini, 1994; and
Ish-Shihri, 2007) tackle the issue of Hadiths translation quality assessment. ElZeini is the first. The main aim of this study is to identify some principles that
can be used to judge Hadith's translation quality. The researcher develops her
pragma-stylistic approach. The study is carried out with specific application to
two translations of the Prophetic Hadith; namely that of Ibrahim & Johnson-
Davies entitled The Forty Hadith and that of Siddiqi entitled Sahih Muslim. The
primary aim is to find which of the two translations under investigation is better
in quality. This is done by comparing 25 Hadiths, which represent the corpus of
the study, according to the approach developed by the researcher. The criteria
used for assessing translation quality are divided into two basic categories: (1)
those related to content; and (2) those related to form. The former refers to the
semantic meaning and covers four basic components:
(1) The pragmatic input: this aims to assess the degree of faithfulness in
imparting certain characteristics of the communicative situation: the speaker,
hearer, and their social relations.
(2) Lexis: this is the main source of the semantic equivalence. It includes
denotation, connotation, usage, frequency of use, register, lexical ambiguity,
lexical gap, and polysemy.
(3) Structure: this deals with the accurate structural equivalence and its
relation to meaning. It means that meaning can be changed when expressed in
different structures. This component includes equivalence on the use of modals,
tense, voice, word order, interjection, person, conjunctive particles, articles,
numbers, prepositions, and structural ambiguity.
(4) Coherence: this component covers the receiver's knowledge needed to
interact with the text. El-Zeini (1994) states that "the lack of experiential
matching would result in producing unfair judgment by the target language

reader" (p.308).
Form-related criteria, on the other hand, include two components:
(1) The textual component: this aims to find out whether the translated
text is as cohesive as the original. This is done by checking cohesion devices
used to link one part of the text to another (i.e., internal organization of the
text).
(2) The stylistic component: this covers effective features which affect the
"tone" and "flavor" of discourse. Some of these features are rhythm, rhyme,
ellipses, repetition, and figures of speech.
From her analysis, El-Zeini (1994) concludes by stating that it is possible
to assess the quality of the translation by following a set of specific criteria. Of
these criteria, the most important one is that related to functional equivalence
(i.e., the illocutionary force of each utterance and the extent to which it is
covered in translation). The researcher finds that equivalence in function is only
achieved when equivalence on other levels (i.e., syntactic, lexical, and stylistic)
could be maintained. The researcher also finds that the pragmatic component
should be considered first when translating religious genres. This is because it
functions as a background interpretive framework that constraints and directs
the selection of lexis and structure in translation" (p.367).
More recently and adopting a text linguistics framework, Ish-Shihri (2007)

develops a model for the analysis, description, and evaluation of the
translations of Hadith. The model is based on Beaugrande and Dresslers model
(1981) with some modifications. It proposes the following standards as criteria
for the evaluation of Hadiths translation: text segmentation (the process of
dividing a text into meaningful units), cohesion (concerned with how the
elements of the surface structure are mutually connected within a sequence),
coherence (concerned with how the elements underlying the surface structure
are mutually accessible and relevant), informativity (concerned with the
elements which convey information in a text), intentionality (concerned with
the text producers aim), contextuality (concerned with the situational,
linguistic, and textual context), acceptability (concerned with intelligibility,
naturalness of style, and appropriateness), and finally intertextuality (concerned
with text allusion and text types).
The corpus of the study consists of 25 Hadiths taken from Al-Bukharis
Hadith collection. Four English translations of these 25 texts are compared in
this study: M.Khan (1997), H.Siddiqi (1971), J.Robson (1963), and Z.Khan
(1975). The assessment is based on the analysis, description, and comparison of
the STs and the TTs in terms of the eight standards mentioned above. The result
of the study shows that M.Khans translation has higher levels of accuracy and
acceptability followed by that of Siddiqis then Z.Khans and finally Robsons

translation.
One can easily notice the similarity between El-Zeinis (1994) and IshShihris (2007) standards of coherence and cohesion. However, Ish-Shihris
standards have the advantage of being coherently unified in one particular
principle, the concept of textuality. Textuality is the center to which each
standard contributes. Besides, the items of El-Zeinis model are too big in
number (more than 45 items). Such a big number of criteria would make the
process of assessing translation a tiresome task for critics. Finally, although ElZeinis model adopts a functional perspective, it is based on the opposition
between content and form. The functionalist perspective emphasizes the fact
that language or meaning is a combination of form and meaning (Halliday &
Hasan, 1989). Obviously, the standards developed by El-Zeini ruined this
inseparable relation between form and content.
Generally speaking, the two studies of El-Zeini (1994) and Ish-Shihri
(2007) shed light on the processes of evaluating the translation of Hadith and
offer suggestions for dealing with some translational problems. Yet, the two
researchers do not concern themselves with the question of evaluating the
translation of rhetorical questions in Hadith in particular following a
functionalist approach.

To the best of the researchers knowledge, there is not a single study in the
literature reviewed which attempts to assess the translation of Hadiths
rhetorical questions when translated from Arabic into English. All of the studies
examined are concerned with analyzing and discussing the major rhetorical
functions of Hadiths questions. There is a consensus among scholars that the
situational context is the one which determines the implied function of these
rhetorical questions.
The first empirical study is that of Al-Hajj (1991). It addresses the major
features of interrogative sentences in Sahih Muslim. The researcher points out
only two rhetorical functions of interrogative structures. The first is
(denunciation) and the second is ( astonishment). The researcher mentions
that the focus of his study is not pointing out and analyzing rhetorical questions,
but rather to generally study the syntactic structures of interrogative sentences
according to the perspective of Chomsky's Standard Theory. Yet, through his
analysis and discussion of the rhetorical aspects of interrogative sentences, AlHajj states two major findings: (1) rhetorical questions used in Hadith would
usually have the syntactic structure of interrogatives (i.e., an interrogative
particle and a rising intonation). However, the implied meanings of such
questions are to be determined according to the contexts in which they occur;
(2) the main purpose of using rhetorical questions in Hadith is to strengthen the
context of the message and to make the idea of the discourse more appealing to
the listener/addressee.
The second study is that of Al-Romayh (2002). She studies the major features
of interrogative structures which occur in Sahih Al-Bukhari. The analysis of the
interrogative structures is done in relation to two aspects: (1) the sentences in
which they occur (i.e., linguistic context); and (2) the situations in which they are
uttered (i.e., situational context). In relation to rhetorical questions, the researcher
finds that they could be classified into two types: (1) rhetorical questions which
convey one meaning; and (2) rhetorical questions which convey more than one
meaning. In relation to the first category, eighteen functions are found in Sahih AlBukhari. These are: ( assertion),( denunciation), ( scolding),
(astonishment),(order),(suggestion),(negation),
(degradation),( indicating improbability), (indicating impatience),
(seeking sympathy), (encouraging), ( arousing interest),
(amiability/tenderness),
(warning),
(glorification),
(admonishment), ( boasting). As for the rhetorical questions

which convey more than one meaning, Al-Romayh finds that Sahih Al-Bukhari
includes seventeen functions which are combined with each other. These are:
( denunciation and scolding)
( denunciation and assertion)

( denunciation and astonishment)
( assertion and astonishment)
( assertion and scolding)
( astonishment and glorification)
( astonishment and warning)
( astonishment and seeking sympathy)
( astonishment and showing uneasiness)
( astonishment and admonishment)
( astonishment and indicating improbability)
( astonishment and invocation)
( lamentation and wailing)
( denunciation, assertion, and astonishment)
( denunciation, astonishment, and scolding)
( denunciation, astonishment, and seeking sympathy)
( astonishment, warning, and fearing)
From her analysis, Al-Romayh (2002) concludes that real questions occur
more than do rhetorical questions in Sahih Al-Bukhari. She also stresses the
importance of identifying both the linguistic and the situational contexts of any
rhetorical question in order to arrive at its exact rhetorical function.
Similar to the approach followed by Al-Romayh (2002), Al-Ammar (2003)

investigates the rhetorical functions of the rhetorical questions which occur in more
than 930 Hadiths in the two Sahihs (i.e., Al-Bukhari and Muslim). He starts by
stressing the point that most of the rhetorical functions of rhetorical questions are
to be identified from their context of occurrence. The researcher,then, addresses in
detail the different meanings of rhetorical questions such as
(negation),
(assertion), ( arousing interest), (order), ( forbidding),

(sarcasm and mockery), ( astonishment), and ( wishing). From
his analysis, the researcher finds that one rhetorical question can have more than
one rhetorical function (i.e., meaning). Hence, it is the context in which the
rhetorical question occurs which would indicate the primary rhetorical function.
The researcher also reaches the conclusion that most of the questions which occur
in the two Sahihs are real rather than rhetorical. He assumes that this is due to the
fact that Hadith is usually a means of teaching and guiding people in their lives.
Thus, it uses a simple language so that it would be easily understood.
2.7 Conclusion
In the light of the above review, a number of observations can be made about
the translation of
rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic into English
according to the perspective of functional equivalence:
1. There is a consensus among scholars regarding the main concern of the

functionalist approach. According to this approach, the main aim of a
translator should be producing as nearly as possible the same effect on his
readers as it is produced on the readers of the original text. This principle is
known as the principle of similar or equivalent response or effect
(Schaffner,1997;Emery,2004), dynamic equivalence (Nida, 1964), and
functional or pragmatic equivalence (House, 1977).
2. The literature that has been reviewed indicates that rhetorical questions
could be viewed from different perspectives depending on the theoretical
framework adopted (Badarneh, 2003; Widdowson, 1979). Formal
approaches view rhetorical questions in terms of their formal properties and
their deep structure derivations, using decontextualized data and formal
syntactic theories. Pragmatic analyses, on the other hand, focus on
addressing the different functions of rhetorical questions as indicated by the
contexts in which they are uttered.
3. Moreover, the literature reveals that consideration of rhetorical questions
and their illocutionary forces must be done in context and not in isolation
(House, 1977; Beekman and Callow, 1979). In the process of translating
rhetorical questions from one language into another, the communicative
situation is one of the elements to be taken into account (Larson, 1974;
Widdowson, 1979; Abdel-Hafiz, 2003; Larson, 1984; Al-Malik, 1995;

House, 1977; Khashuqji, 1999; Al-Romayh,2002; and Al-Ammar,2003).
This is because interrogative utterances often have other extended meanings
that are determined by their contexts. By considering the communicative
situation and the attitude of the speaker, a translator would provide a more
careful analysis of the ST for translation purposes.
4. However, while the effects of deviations at the lexical and the syntactic
levels of rhetorical questions, which account for their formal properties,
have been acknowledged by linguists and researchers (Khashuqji, 1999;
Abbas, 1998; Badarneh, 2003; Al-Romayh, 2002; and Hervey, 1998), it
seems, from the literature reviewed herein, that pragmatic and functional
deviations, which account for the situational context or the discourse
functions of rhetorical questions, have not been researched enough.
5. Though they are widely acknowledged, definitions of equivalence based on
syntactic or lexical similarities alone have actually been criticized by some
linguists (Emery, 2004; Widdowson, 1979; and House, 1997). Formal
definitions of equivalence revealed to be deficient in that they can not
explain appropriate use in communication. Thus, functional, communicative,
or pragmatic equivalence have been important concepts in translation,
focusing on language use rather than structure or lexis.
6. It may also be pointed out that while there are some attempts at the
evaluation of Quran's translation (Yusif, 2000; Badarneh, 2003; Mousa,
1995; and Al-Malik, 1995), much less attention has been paid to Hadith.
Interestingly enough, this lack in Hadith's translation evaluation is also
noticed by Al-Maihb (1999) who asserts that "while many attempts have
been made to render the meanings of the Holy Qur'an into English, much
less attention has been paid to Hadith" (p.231).
7. Similarly, the meager interest in the translation of Quranic rhetorical
questions (Mousa, 1995; Al-Malik, 1995) is met by an apparent absence of
discussing this rhetorical figure in Hadith. Though there are some studies
that discuss the functions (i.e., rhetorical meanings or illocutionary forces) of
Hadith's rhetorical questions (Al-Ammar, 2003; Al-Romayh, 2002; and AlHajj, 1991), none of these studies discusses the issue of assessing the
translation of Hadith's rhetorical questions when translated from Arabic into
English.
8. More specifically, no study, to the researcher's knowledge, has attempted to
investigate and assess the Arabic/English translation of rhetorical questions
occurring in An-Nawawi's Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous)
(1992), which is considered to be "a guide and a compendium of useful
information to Muslim Ulama and theologians, and of great help to them in

preaching Islam and its practice" (Abbasi, 1983, p.xiv).
In sum, one could say that not enough attention has been given by scholars, as
reflected by those studies reviewed herein, to the issue of translating rhetorical
questions in Hadith from Arabic into English according to the perspective of
functional equivalence. A study of this type, in the opinion of the researcher, will
hopefully bridge a gap in the literature on Hadith translation and make a
contribution to this area of inquiry based on insights derived from the foregoing
review.
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
As mentioned earlier, the aim of this study is to find out whether, how, and to
what extent functional equivalence could be achieved in the translation of
rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic into English. This chapter explains the
methodology followed in conducting the present research. It starts with a
description of the data selected, followed by a description of the theoretical model
used for analysis along with the procedures used for data analysis.
3.1 Research data

This study adopts a corpus-based approach to linguistic investigation. It is
based upon a data of seventeen rhetorical questions used in fifteen Hadiths from
An-Nawawi's Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous) (1992). As it is a
formidable task to search thousands of Prophetic rhetorical questions, Riyad-usSaliheen (Gardens of the Righteous) is chosen to be the corpus of the study
because of the following three reasons: (1) no study, to the researchers best
knowledge, has tackled the issue of translating rhetorical questions occurred in this
Hadiths book. All of the studies the researcher went through dealt with Riyad-usSaliheens rhetorical questions from a legislative rather than a linguistic point of
view; (2) it contains enough rhetorical questions uttered in authentic daily
communicative situations with varied power levels of speakers which suit the
parameters required in pragmatic analysis; (3) most of the texts it contains are
considered to be authentic as they are narrated by both Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Therefore, there is no weaknesses expected either on the chain of transmission or
in the linguistic text.
Four steps were involved in the process of data collection. These were the
following:
1. Listing all interrogative utterances that occur in Riyad-us-Saliheen
(Gardens of the Righteous) (1992) whether genuine or rhetorical.
2. Classifying interrogative utterances according to their purpose into genuine
or rhetorical. The former occur with the intention of the speaker to get an answer
(i.e., as an information seeking device). The latter, on the other hand, occur when
the speaker has a different motive for asking the question other than getting
information. Reference to a set of authorized Hadith commentaries were made to
help and guide the researcher in this regard.
3. Determining the intended function of each rhetorical question (i.e.,
illocutionary force). This was done by referring to Hadith commentaries (IbnAlaan, 2004; Abu-Mousa, 2000; Al-Asqalani, 2005; Al-Bustani & Muhammad,
2006; Al-Hilali, 2004; Al-Othaimeen, 2004; Al-Saboni, 2007; An-Nawawi, 1980;
Arberry, 1964; Yusuf, 1999) and some studies done in Hadiths interrogatives (AlAmmar,2003; Al-Hajj, 1991; Al-Malik,1995; Al-Romayh, 2002; Ish-Shihri,2007;
Badarneh,2003; El-Zeini,1994; Foda, 1953; Khashuqji, 1999; Yusif, 2000). When

not clearly indicated in them, the illocutionary force of the rhetorical question was
determined by consulting experts in the area of rhetoric and Hadith sciences. In
some cases, the researcher determines the illocutionary force by using Badarnehs
(2003) two principle guidelines for determining the illocutionary forces of
rhetorical questions: text-external and text-internal. Badarneh mentions that:
Text-external considerations concern the context in which the
question is uttered and which involves the beliefs, knowledge,
assumptions, and commitments of the participants. Text-internal
considerations concern the linguistic signals and strategies that
may have an effect upon the illocutionary force of the rhetorical
question, such as sequencing, word order deviations, and
pronominal shifts. (p.94)
4. Selecting the rhetorical questions for the present study. Out of the total of
1905 Hadiths and 73 rhetorical questions in Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of the
Righteous), seventeen rhetorical questions were chosen on the basis of the
following criteria:
1. They display different rhetorical functions.
2. They are chosen out of different text types (e.g., dialogues,
stories, and statements).
3. They are of different lengths.

It is worth mentioning that no various number of rhetorical questions with
different pragmatic functions was found in Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of the
Righteous) specifically, and in the books of Hadith generally. This is because the
style of Hadith is usually direct; of giving directions and clarifying to people
aspects related to their culture and religion (El-Zeini, 1994; Khashuqji, 1999). The
seventeen rhetorical functions of the rhetorical questions under investigation are:
challenge(), confirming and consoling() , persuasion (),
astonishment(), arousing interest(), indicating impatience (),
giving glade tidings(), lamentation(), negation(), denunciation )
(, exhortation () , glorification and exaltation(),
threatening and frightening() , assertion and affirmation() ,
ordering (), admonishment( ), and indicating improbability().
To enrich analysis and for purposes of comparison, three English versions,
from the few options available, by four different translators who show different
ways of translating and are of different backgrounds are chosen. These are the
following:
1. Riyad-us-Salihin (1999) by S. Al-Maihb.
2. Riyd-us-Saliheen (1999) by M.Amin and Al-Arabi bin Razduq.
3. Gardens of the Righteous (1975) by M.Khan.
Data analysis
This study is analytic and comparative in nature. It analyzes the functions of
rhetorical questions in selected sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It also
compares the translations of selected translators in relation to the way functional
equivalence is established when translating rhetorical questions from Arabic into
English.
Theoretical frame of analysis
The analysis of each rhetorical question in the present study focuses on the
levels of rhetorical questions as presented by Mousa in her thesis The Translation
of Rhetorical Questions from Arabic into English (1995). This frame of analysis
has been chosen by the researcher because of the following three reasons: (1) it
deals with the levels that affect the translation of rhetorical questions in particular
rather than any other type of questions; (2) it deals with the levels that affect the
translation of rhetorical questions from Arabic into English, which are the two
languages involved in the present study; (3) these levels of analysis seem to be
comprehensive as they gather all the linguistic features of text which have a
considerable impact on the creation of functional equivalence: lexical items,
syntactic structures, and rhetorical devices (El-Zeini, 1994).
In her thesis, Mousa (1995) maintains that for achieving an effective
translation of any rhetorical question, four levels of rhetorical questions should be
identified. This is because they play a significant role in both: (1) comprehending
the original rhetorical question; and (2) production of the target rhetorical question.
These levels are: the syntactic, the semantic, the pragmatic, and the aesthetic.
According to Mousa (1995), the original rhetorical question cannot
completely correspond to the target rhetorical question syntactically, semantically,
pragmatically, and aesthetically. Yet, it is the task of the translator to pay attention
to all of these levels while translating any rhetorical question. In other words, the
translator cannot transfer their components into the target rhetorical question to the
full, yet he has to do his best in examining them in the given question focusing on
the most important level forced by the related situation (p.44). In the following
paragraphs, a description of each of these levels will be presented.
The syntactic level:
This level deals with the grammatical form of the rhetorical question (i.e., its
interrogative form). It means that some rhetorical questions might be converted
into statements of different grammatical forms or transmitted into equivalent
rhetorical questions in the TL with or without additional comments within or
outside the text. What distinguishes this level from the other three, according to
Mousa (1995), is its higher degree of flexibility. This is because the translator can
decide on which grammatical form to use (i.e., interrogative or a statement), but he
cannot be flexible in conveying the meaning intended (pragmatic level) for the
meaning intended is always one.
The semantic level:
This level deals with the accurate translation of the lexical terms that
constitute the meaning of the target rhetorical question. Consequently, if the
translation makes sense, it will be a successful process on the semantic level. In
short, it is the task of the translator to choose the lexical items in accordance with
their appropriateness to the rhetorical function of the rhetorical question translated.
The pragmatic level:

This level has to do with the ability of the translator to convey appropriately
the secondary purpose (i.e., illocutionary force) of the rhetorical question in his
translation. For instance, Mousa (1995) suggests converting the rhetorical question
in the following Quranic verse to a statement in order to convey its purpose and
intended meaning of denial and indicating improbability:
The Quranic verse:
.(114:" " )
Mousas translation:
Nobody is more unjust than one who forbids Allahs name to be praised in
His mosques and seeks their ruin (Mousa, 1995, p.48).
The aesthetic level:

This level has to do with the usage of the interrogative form instead of other
forms of language (e.g., statements, commands, etc.) as such form appeal to
senses. In such cases, the translator has to try his best to capture two values: the
aesthetic value of the rhetorical question and its informative value. According to
Mousa (1995), both values can hardly be attained; therefore, one of them, most of
the times, would be sacrificed (p.48).
Mousa (1995) adds to these four levels punctuation as an element that should
be checked by the translators in their translated rhetorical questions. They have to
give their judgment on the appropriate punctuation mark that should be used and to
decide where to put this selected mark. To Mousa, deviations might occur in the
use of the appropriate punctuation marks when translating rhetorical questions
because of two reasons: (1) Arabic and English are different in their usage of
punctuation marks and in the spots where these marks should be employed; (2)
punctuation marks might be neglected, non-intentionally, by the translator if he
does not heed the fact that they play a decisive role in determining the success of
the translation process.
3.2.2 Procedures for data analysis
For each rhetorical question chosen, the following five procedures are used
for analysis:
1. The Arabic version of Hadith containing the rhetorical question is given,

with the rhetorical question to be discussed written in bold. This is followed
by the equivalent rhetorical question in the three translated versions. The
display of the English translations is done according to the alphabetical order
of the names of the translators.
2. The English translation of the whole Hadith is given with the rhetorical
question to be investigated written in bold. With some modifications done
by the researcher, Abbasis translation (1983) is used for this purpose. This
translation is chosen, of the few options available, in order to get neutral
objective judgments. In addition, an evaluative analysis done by the
researcher shows that Abbasis translation has convincing levels of accuracy
and acceptability. It is closer to the meaning and to the underlying idea of
the original. Nothing has been omitted from the original, nor meaning or
central ideas of the Hadiths under investigation are twisted or changed.
3. The rhetorical question is picked up and the context of its utterance is
explained. Its rhetorical meaning (i.e., function) is determined and reasons
for this determination are supplied. Commentaries and dictionaries are
checked in order to guarantee a correct and a full understanding of the
Hadith containing the rhetorical question (see section 3.1).
4. The equivalent rhetorical question in the three English versions is analyzed

according to Mousas levels of rhetorical questions (see section 3.2.1). The
analysis points out significant syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and aesthetic
deviations that lead to differences in the function of the original rhetorical
question. Discussion also points out linguistic signals and strategies used to
achieve functional equivalence in the translation of the rhetorical question
under investigation.
5. The adequacy in translating the rhetorical question by the four translators is
judged. Each example is assessed on the basis of whether and to what extent
it conveys the illocutionary force of the original (i.e., the same rhetorical
function found in the Arabic text). A translation is considered better than
others on the basis of its success in maintaining functional equivalence.
Based on Sager's belief (1983) that translation evaluation has to be carried
out by different assessors to get balanced objective results and to validate the
discussion, a questionnaire for evaluating the translation quality of the four
translators under discussion was distributed to three male bilingual scholars (two
assistant professors, and one associate) experienced in the two languages involved
(i.e., Arabic and English) and are working at The College of Languages and
Translation at Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University and The Saudi
Association of Languages and Translation. Each rhetorical question was presented
in its context (Hadith) followed by the three translations to be evaluated. A box

divided horizontally into three sections, and vertically into four sections followed
each Hadith. The horizontal sections represent the three translations. To ensure
neutrality of judgments, the four English translators are abbreviated by using the
following abbreviations: T1 (Al-Maihbs translation),T2 (Amin and bin Razduqs
translation), and T3 (Khans translation). The four vertical sections, on the other
hand, represent the four levels of analysis. Under each level, there are three boxes
numbered from 1 to 3, representing a three-points Likert scale (1= Inadequate (if
the translation presents a total failure to depict a similar function and to convey the
intended meaning); 2= Medium (if there is a difference or partial deviation in
conveying the function of the rhetorical question when translated); 3= Adequate (if
the translated rhetorical question is very close in function to that of the original)
(see Appendix).
The task of the respondents was assigning a value to each translation on the
basis of the 3-points scale. The total number of points assigned by the respondents
to each translator is indicative of his adequacy in maintaining functional
equivalence of the original rhetorical question. After collecting and analyzing the
questionnaire responses, the percentage of choice is calculated. The translator who
gains the highest percentage is considered the best in terms of achieving functional
equivalence in his translation of the original rhetorical questions into English.
After the analysis and evaluation of the rhetorical questions under

investigation, it will hopefully be possible to draw conclusions regarding whether,
how, and to what extent functional equivalence could be achieved in the translation
of rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic into English.
CHAPTER FOUR
Data Analysis and Evaluation
This chapter is devoted to the analysis of the selected rhetorical questions in
terms of Mousas four levels of rhetorical questions: syntactic, semantic,
pragmatic, and aesthetic (see section 3.2.1). The arrangement of this chapter goes
as follows: first, the Arabic version of Hadith is given with the rhetorical question
to be evaluated written in bold. This is followed by the equivalent rhetorical
questions in the three translated versions. Then, the English translation of the
Hadith is presented and the rhetorical meaning (i.e., function) of the rhetorical
question is determined. Later, an analysis of the equivalent rhetorical question in
the three English versions in terms of the four levels mentioned above is discussed.
Finally, an evaluation of the three translations of the rhetorical question is
presented. The order of presenting the rhetorical questions in this chapter is done
according to their order of occurrence in An-Nawawi's Riyad-us-Saliheen
(Gardens of the Righteous) (1992).
4.1 HADITH (1)

The
Arabic
Text
Al-
:

:
.(811992" ). " : : " ":
78. Who will defend you from me? (Al-Maihb ,1999, p.39).
Maihb
Amin & 78. Who will then protect you from me? (Amin & bin Razduq ,1999,
Vol.1: p.97).
bin
Razduq
78. Now who will deliver you from me? (Khan ,1975, p.24).
Khan
4.1.1 English translation of the Hadith

Jaber relates that he accompanied the Holy Prophet in the campaign of Dhatir-Riqaa. We came to a shady tree and we left it for him to rest. A pagan came,
and seeing the sword of the Holy Prophet which was hanging on the tree, drew it,
and said to him: Do you fear me? He answered: No. Then the man asked: Who
will then deliver you from me? The Holy Prophet answered: Allah.
4.1.2 Rhetorical function of the question
This Hadith shows how rhetorical questions are used as tools of challenge.
They are used as calls to engage in a contest or fight, especially when the
addressee might be unwilling to do something.
In this Hadith, the Prophet (PBUH) shows his utmost trust in Allah by not
being afraid of the polytheist when the latter drew the Prophets sword in an
attempt to kill him. As a reaction to the Prophets action, the polytheist uttered the
rhetorical question to challenge the Prophet to protect himself from being killed.
4.1.3 Analysis
Syntactically speaking, all of the four translators use the future tense
will
defend/protect/deliver as an equivalent to the present verb " "in the ST. This
effective use of the future tense adds the meaning of threat which usually
accompanies challenge to the situation. Wright (1964) indicates that when the
sentence indicates threat or challenge, the verb usually refers to the future time.
Thus, will is a suitable modal as it expresses future. In short, the use of the
appropriate modal in this example helps in maintaining structural equivalence.
Yet, Khan uses the word now " "along with the future tense will
deliver. This might be due to the translators attempt to preserve the tense of the
original (i.e., the present tense). However, the use of both now and will deliver
in one sentence is misleading. It confuses the reader regarding the tense intended
and consequently reduces the effect of using the future tense to indicate the
function of challenge. It would have been better if Khan uses the future tense
without the word now.
Apart from structural equivalence, and regarding the semantic level, the
original rhetorical question has the conjunctive particle " "fa- prefixed to the
interrogative particle " " man. El-Zeini (1994) mentions that this particle is one
of the most difficult conjunctions to translate. This is because when this
conjunctive particle is translated literally as and, it will fail to achieve its basic
semantic relationship of preceding and succeeding sentences. Al-Nabarawi (1960)
also asserts that the " "fa- is used to separate the protasis, which is usually
ellipted, from the apodosis. In the rhetorical question " " who will
protect you from me?, the ellipted condition would be " " if you are
not scared from me. The " "fa- dispenses this ellipted condition. As a result,
maintaining " "fa- as then in the translation is necessary since it is a clue for
an ellipted structure which could not be realized otherwise. This is done only in
Amin and bin Razduqs translation in which the " "fa- is translated literally as
then. Al-Maihb and Khan, on the other hand, neglect the translation of the
conjunctive particle and thus reduce the causality relationship (i.e., the logical
result of a particular statement or situation) which usually accompanies the
function of challenge.
Aesthetically speaking, all the translators succeed by preserving the
interrogative form of the original rhetorical question. The interrogative particle ""
man is translated as who. As such, the rhetoric of
" " man rhetorical
questions is preserved. Rhetorical questions introduced by " " man are

employed to emphasize Gods omnipotence and omnipresence by posing questions
of ability. The implicit or explicit answers to this type of rhetorical questions are
either God or no one (Badarneh, 2003). The " " man interrogative structure
used by the translators, therefore, serves the function of the rhetorical question. It
emphasizes and establishes Gods limitless power and de-emphasizes human
power (in this Hadith, the polytheist) (Ibn-Alaan, 2004; Abu-Mousa, 2000; AlAsqalani, 2005).
4.1.4 Evaluation
In terms of the general scores for this rhetorical question, table (1) shows that
Amin and bin Razduqs translation has the highest number of points, scoring the
highest percentage (84%). Al-Maihb and Khan score nearly the same percentage
(73% and 75%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
26
30
27
Percentage
73%
84%
75%
Specifically speaking, table (2) reveals that Amin and bin Razduq score the
highest percentage in two levels. Khan scores a similar percentage to that of Amin
and bin Razduq in the syntactic level. Al-Maihb comes last in the syntactic and
pragmatic levels, but scores the same percentage to that of Amin and bin Razduq
when it comes to the aesthetic level.
Table 2. The scores of specific levels for the translation of
question (1)
Level
Points &
Percentages
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin

Razduq
Khan
rhetorical
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
No. of points
Percentage
78%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
89%
56%
No. of points
Percentage
56%
78%
67%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
89%
Amin & bin Razduqs translation is considered the best by the respondents
(84%) due to the use of then as a literal translation of " "fa-. Based on the
researchers analysis and the respondents judgments, Amin & bin Razduqs
translation would be considered adequate while that of Al-Maihb and Khan as
medium.
4.2 HADITH (2)

The
Arabic
Text
: :

" :

: "
" :
.(98,1992" ).
120. Has not God granted you what you can give as alms of?! (AlAlMaihb Maihb ,1999, p.52).
Amin & 120. Has Allah not prescribed for you (a course) following which you can
bin
Razduq
Khan
(also) give Sadaqah? (Amin & bin Razduq ,1999, Vol.1: p.134).
120. Has not Allah endowed you with that which you can employ for
charity? (Khan ,1975, p.33).

Abu Dharr relates that some companions said to the Holy Prophet (PBUH):
The rich people have taken away a good deal of merit. They pray and fast as we
do, but they are in a position to distribute in charity a part of their wealth (which
we are unable to do). He said: Has not Allah endowed you things which you
can also employ for charity? All glorification to Allah is charity, all praise to
Allah is charity, all affirmation to Allahs unity is charity, all affirmation to Allahs
Greatness is charity, calling upon somebody to do good is charity, prohibiting
somebody from doing evil is charity, to cohabit with your wife is charity. They
asked: Messenger of Allah, is it possible that one of us should satisfy his sexual
urge and gets rewarded? He said: if he satisfied it unlawfully, would it not be
sinful? Therefore, when he satisfies it lawfully, it deserves reward.
This Hadith indicates that virtue has a vast meaning in Islam. It includes
every good action that is done with a good intention and does not involve
disobedience of Allah. It even includes natural activities of man that are
permissible. One is also rewarded when abstaining from a sin when this abstention
is done for the sake of obedience of Allah (Amin& bin Razduq,1999,vol.1).
The rhetorical question in this Hadith is uttered by the Prophet (PBUH) as a
response to the complaints of his companions. Driven by their enthusiasm and
surpassing each other in good actions, the Prophet's companions complain to him
their inability to give in Sadaqah (i.e., charity) for being poor. They claim that the
rich have taken away the reward as they are able to give in charity. In an attempt to
console them, the Prophet (PBUH) assures his companions that one can give in
charity by performing any action with good intention and which does not involve
disobedience of Allah.
Though the question " " has not Allah endowed
you things which you can employ for charity? has the syntactic structure of an
interrogative, it conveys two rhetorical functions: (1) comforting and consoling the
poor as a response to their inability to give in charity; (2) asserting that there are
indeed other ways one could make use of as charity.
4.2.3 Analysis
The rhetorical question in this Hadith has two functions: expressive and
argumentative. The expressive function is that of comforting and consoling the
poor as a response to their inability to give in charity. The argumentative function,
on the other hand, is that of asserting the existence of other possible ways one
could make use of to gain God's reward. All translators achieve a total syntactic
equivalence to the interrogative structure of the original. Yet, there are some
deviations in their transmission of the rhetorical functions expressed in the abovementioned rhetorical question.
Syntactically speaking, all of the four translators succeed in conveying the
expressive function of comforting by keeping the present perfect tense of the
original rhetorical question. They translate the form " " qad jaala as "has
granted/prescribed/endowed". The present perfect tense in English is usually used
to convey the meaning of "an action or state which began sometime in the past and
has continued to the moment of speaking" (Brislin, 1976, p.185). It follows that
using this form when translating the original rhetorical question intends to indicate
that the general principle of "Sadaqah", as any action done with good intention, is
already settled by Allah. Yet, any Muslim now and then should be actively
involved in finding out possible means for giving in charity. He/She should
consider any action which does not involve disobedience of Allah and is done with
good intention to be a "Sadaqah" even if such an action is not stated directly in the
Quran or mentioned in Hadith. Such a fact is the one that makes the Prophet's
companions comforted as virtue has vast meanings and means in Islam.
Likewise, the four translators succeed in their use of the negative form "has
not". The interrogative particle in the rhetorical question under investigation is the
hamza followed by the negative particle " "laysa. This form has been used
not to indicate the basic meaning of interrogative, but rather to indicate the
meaning of assertion as Al-Saboni (2007) points out that:
(344. " )"
Awalaysa here means qad, and the interrogative form is used for assertion.
The meaning of qad " "for the interrogative particle hamza can be
brought out well in English by interpolating the word "not" (Asad, 1993). Hence, it
is clear that the translators succeed in their use of the negative form in this kind of
context as the purpose of the negative here is the opposite. The answer to this
negative question is affirmative.
Another point related to the use of the negative form and which helps in
reflecting the argumentative function of assertion is the use of the more formal
"has not" as opposed to the less formal contracted form of "hasn't". The use of this
more emphatic form in all translations suits the context. It strengths the
authoritative tone of the speaker (i.e., the Prophet (PBUH) over the hearers (i.e.,
his companions), and hence highlights that the Prophet (PBUH) is in a formal
situation asserting what he is saying.
On the semantic level, and in relation to the expressive function of comforting
and consoling, the addition of the word "also" in Amin and bin Razduqs
translation helps in clarifying the idea of other possibilities for giving in charity.
Though not explicitly uttered in the original, the two translators succeed by
inserting this word. It indicates the illocutionary force of consoling the poor by
other ways through which they can "also" give in charity. The English reader of
this translation will most probably notice that the addition of this word will lead
the addressees to be more convinced of God's fairness to both the rich and the
poor; hence feeling comforted (which is one of the rhetorical functions the Prophet
(PBUH) aims at when uttering this rhetorical question).
As for the argumentative function of assertion, Al-Maihb fails somehow to
express it due to his wrong addition of an exclamation mark at the end of the
rhetorical question. Such a punctuation mark is usually used to indicate the
speaker's exclamation and surprise from what has been uttered. Yet, this is totally
impossible to occur in such a situation, where the Prophet (PBUH) is teaching his
companions the actual meaning of Sadaqah and good actions. This is clearly
indicated by the fact that the Prophet (PBUH) did not wait for the replay of his
companions, but rather stated immediately after his rhetorical question a list of
actions which are considered to be means of charity. In other words, the use of the
exclamation mark in Al-Maihb's translation changes the rhetorical function of the
original question from assertion to wonder (astonishment).
In relation to the aesthetic level, all translators succeed in their use of the
strategy of transference (i.e., translating the rhetorical question into English by
keeping its apparent interrogative form) rather than that of conversion (i.e.,
transferring the rhetorical question into a statement in accordance with its purpose
and its meaning) (Mousa,1995). Using the strategy of transference when
translating the rhetorical question under investigation helps in reflecting its
intended rhetorical value. This is because of two reasons. First, it helps in
indicating that the Prophet (PBUH) wants to produce a certain effect on his
companions (the feeling of consoling and comforting) in addition to the
information intended to be transmitted. If the strategy of conversion was used in
this situation, it will indicate that the Prophet (PBUH) aims at conveying the
intended information away from any effect, which is not the case here. Second,
expressing the function of assertion by the use of an interrogative form rather than
by a statement gives more emphasis to the fact that the speaker wants the addressee
to recognize and affirm what he wants to assert (Al-Malik, 1995, p.162).
4.2.4 Evaluation
Khans translation has the highest percentage followed by that of Al-Maihb.
Amin and bin Razduq come last with the percentage of (70%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin

Razduq
Khan
No. of points
30
25
32
Percentage
84%
70%
89%
Specifically speaking, table (4) reveals that Khan scores the highest
percentage in two levels. Al-Maihb scores similar percentages to that of Khan in
the syntactic and semantic levels. Amin and bin Razduq come last in three levels
but score the same percentage to that of Al-Maihb when it comes to the pragmatic
level.
Table 4. The scores of specific levels for the translation of rhetorical question
(2)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
100%
No. of points
Percentage
89%
56%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
67%
78%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
67%
89%
It is clear from the discussion presented above that there is a slight difference
between Al-Maihb and Khan in relation to their success in maintaining functional
equivalence. Amin and bin Razduqs translation is the longest one due to the fact
of inserting certain words within the text. Yet, to the researcher, it is still
considered accurate and adequate. The translators seem to grasp the intended
function of the original rhetorical question and as a result make use of a certain
strategy (i.e., addition) to express the intended meaning. However, according to the
responses of the participants, Amin and bin Razduq score the lowest. This might be
due to the use of brackets which might distract the reader. Inserting some words
within the body of the text may reduce the illocutionary force as they produce
rather lengthy sentences (El-Zeini, 1994). It would be fair to consider Khans and
Al-Maihbs translation as being adequate while that of Amin and bin Razduq as
medium.
4.3 HADITH (3)
The
Arabic
Text
: :

" :

: "
" :
.(98,1992" ).
AlMaihb
Amin &
bin
Razduq
120. Had he satisfied it through a forbidden way, would he have had a

sin? (Al-Maihb ,1999, p.52).
120. You see, if he were to satisfy it with something forbidden, would it
not be a sin on his part? (Amin & bin Razduq ,1999, Vol.1: p.134).
Khan
120. If he satisfied his urge unlawfully would it not be sinful? (Khan

,1975, p.33).

Abu Dharr relates that some companions said to the Holy Prophet (PBUH):
The rich people have taken away a good deal of merit. They pray and fast as we
do, but they are in a position to distribute in charity a part of their wealth (which
we are unable to do). He said: Has not Allah endowed you things which you can
also employ for charity? All glorification to Allah is charity, all praise to Allah is
charity, all affirmation to Allahs unity is charity, all affirmation to Allahs
Greatness is charity, calling upon somebody to do good is charity, prohibiting
somebody from doing evil is charity, to cohabit with your wife is charity. They
asked: Messenger of Allah, is it possible that one of us should satisfy his sexual
urge and gets rewarded? He said: If he satisfied it unlawfully, would it not be
sinful? Therefore, when he satisfies it lawfully, it deserves reward.
This example shows how the rhetorical question can be used as a persuasive
tool. This is done by putting the question directly to the addressee and thus directly
soliciting the expression of agreement. In these cases, the rhetorical question is
used in an attempt to make the hearer admit the truth of a particular state of affairs
or to elicit the respondents admission of appropriateness and the value of the

persuaders argumentation (Zillmann, 1972, p.160).
The rhetorical question is uttered by the Prophet (PBUH) to his companions
as an act of persuasion. The Prophets companions wonder as they do not expect
the legal performance of the sexual act to be an act of charity. In an attempt to
change the attitude of the addressees towards Islam, so as to gain their love and
appreciation towards this new religion, the Prophet (PBUH) uttered this rhetorical
question. He mentions that just as performing sexual acts could be sinful when
done illegally, they also could be a mean of getting rewards when done in a
permissible way. Abstention could rise to the level of an act of obedience when
that abstention is done for the sake of obedience of Allah (An-Nawawi, 1980; AlHilali, 2004; Al-Saboni, 2007).
4.3.3 Analysis
This example is a clear manifestation of the classical function of rhetorical
questions, namely, their utilization as an argumentative device. In this situation, the
rhetorical question and the answer are the words of the narrator. It may be argued,
however, that this contradicts with the basic assumption of rhetorical questions, as
they do not have or expect an answer. Yet, this question is uttered by the Prophet
(PBUH) who already knows the answer and the thoughts of his companions.
Hence, even if the question is answered, it is just to signal the narrators
knowledge of his audiences thoughts and is used to clarify an aspect of the new
religion.
Regarding the syntactic level, Badarneh (2003) mentions that the negative
form is typically used with rhetorical questions having the communicative function
of persuasion. They have the form of is not this so and so?. Amin and bin
Razduq as well as Khan use that form. Al-Maihb, on the other hand, uses the
positive form of would he have had a sin. As such, he lessens the argumentative
tone of the question and its indirect act of asking the addressees to agree with the
speakers proposition and supporting the speakers argument.
The Arabic verbal sentence has the personal pronoun ( )haa suffixed to the
verb ( )wadaa (satisfy). The pronoun refers to the noun ( )shahwa
(sexual urge) mentioned in the pervious sentence. Al-Maihb and Amin and bin
Razduq drop the noun and use the personal pronoun it, which implies a direct
reference to the noun. Khan, on the other hand, repeats the noun and uses the
nominal phrase his urge. This repetition, however, affects negatively the power
of persuasion found in the original rhetorical question. This is because the use of
this phrase makes what is covert in the original overt in the translation. The
original, using the covert, leaves the chance for the hearer to draw conclusions
(soliciting the expression of agreement) and thus keeps him more alert. Making the
pronoun overt reduces the hearers involvement and hence his participation in
admitting the truth of the state of affairs discussed. Badarneh (2003) stresses the
role of the addressees involvement and considers it an important felicity condition
for the speech act to achieve the intended illocutionary effect of persuasion.
Aesthetically speaking, all the translators succeed in preserving the
interrogative form of the original rhetorical question. By using this form in their
translations, the translators convey the argumentative function more than when the
question is translated as a statement. In other words, the illocutionary force of
persuasion in rhetorical questions is emphasized and this consequently helps in
expressing the speakers message forcefully in settings where questioning the
content of the proposition is clearly not the main function of the utterance
(Holmes, 1984, p.352).
4.3.4 Evaluation
In terms of achieving functional equivalence in general, Khans translation
has the highest number of points, scoring the highest percentage (84%). Amin and
bin Razduq come second, scoring (78%) while Al-Maihb
comes last, scoring (75%).

Al-Maihb
Amin & bin

Razduq
Khan
No. of points
27
28
30
Percentage
75%
78%
84%
percentage in two levels. Amin and bin Razduq score similar percentages to that of
Khan in the syntactic and semantic levels. Al-Maihb comes last in two levels but
scores the same percentage of that of Amin and bin Razduq when it comes to the
aesthetic level. Hence, Khans translation is adequate while that of Amin and bin
Razduqs as well as Al-Maihbs are medium.
(3)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
78%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
56%
67%
78%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
67%
78%
4.4 HADITH (4)

The
Arabic
Text
" : :

:

" : : "
.(1992100)
AlMaihb
Amin &
bin
Razduq
Khan
126. O Gods Messenger, shall we be rewarded for (doing good to)

beasts? (Al-Maihb ,1999, p.54).
126. Shall we be rewarded for showing kindness to the animals also?
(Amin& bin Razduq ,1999, Vol.1, p.138).
126. Messenger of Allah, are we rewarded for kindness to animals also?
(Khan ,1975, p.34).

Abu Hurairah relates that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: A man walking
along a path felt very much thirsty, reaching a well he descended into it, drank
water to his fill and came out, when he saw a dog with its tongue bulging out and
trying to lick up mud to quench his thirst. The man said to himself that the dog was
feeling the same extreme thirst as he had felt a little while ago. So he descended
once more into the well, filled his leather hosier with water and came up holding it
by his teeth and gave the dog a drink. Allah appreciated the act of this man and
forgave his sins. The Holy Prophet was asked: O Messenger of Allah, shall we
be rewarded for kindness towards animals as well?! He said: there is

recompense for kindness to every living thing.
The Prophet (PBUH) wants to emphasize the importance of kindness to every
creature, even animals. Allahs quality of mercy and forgiveness is immensely
vast. If He wants, He may forgive a person even on a minor good action as
showing kindness to animals (Amin& bin Razduq,1999,vol.1; Al-Bustani &
Muhammad, 2006; Yusuf, 1999).
This Hadith has one rhetorical question uttered by the Prophets companions.
In a form of an interrogative, the rhetorical question in this Hadith is used to
express the meaning of astonishment and surprise. The addressees astonishment
derives from concerning kindness to animals that, from the speakers point of
view, is a minor action to have this great reward (Al-Othaimeen, 2004, vol.1).
4.4.3 Analysis
In this Hadith, the interrogative form is used to indicate the surprise and the
exclamation of the hearers about the content of the utterance. In this case, there is
no answer expected to the interrogative. Al-Malik (1995) assumes that in such
cases the exclamatory question is interrogative in structure, but has the

illocutionary force of an exclamatory assertion (p.182).
Syntactically speaking, all the translators succeed in rendering an accurate
grammatical form of the original rhetorical question although no clear interrogative
particle is used in the original. They use the most basic interrogative type, and the
most widely distributed, the yes-no questions. The question particle in the Arabic
text is hamza which has been omitted as abu-Owdah (1990) mentions:
(90. " ): "
The hamza has been omitted. The original is wa Ina lanna?
It seems that all the translators rely on the context and the question mark of
the original text through which they were able to comprehend the rhetorical
function and consequently rendering it appropriately in their translations. Yet, it
would have been better if they add an exclamation mark at the end of their
translated rhetorical questions. Such punctuation mark would help in indicating the
speakers exclamation and surprise from what has been uttered.
Moreover, both Al-Maihb and Amin and bin Razduq use the modal shall
which is appropriately used in terms of its degree of certainty. The Prophets
companions are uncertain whether or not one could get a reward when he shows
kindness to animals. In a surprised manner, they raise this rhetorical question.
Hence, using shall implies a possibility or probability of the action to happen

rather than certainty.
On the semantic level, the addition of certain lexical items in the three
translations helps in conveying adequately the illocutionary force of the original
rhetorical question. Al-Maihbs addition of the exclamatory particle O might be
an attempt to suggest surprise. Badarneh (2003) claims that more genuine
expression of wonder is conveyed through a rhetorical question prefaced with an
emotive formulaic expression (p.122). In Al-Maihbs translation, the speakers
question is prefaced by a formulaic expression, an interjection that starts with the
exclamatory particle O. This contributes to the interpretation of the rhetorical
question as conveying astonishment and wonder.
Similarly, the addition of the word also in Amin and bin Razduqs and
Khans translations has an expressive function. By the addition of this word, the
surprise is based on animals, the type of creatures which one can be rewarded for
doing good to, and not on the action itself (i.e., doing good things). This is what
Al-Othaimeen (2004) mentions when he comments on the reason of the speakers
astonishment:
.(377 . " ) "
This is because it is an animal. So, how would this man who quenched the
thirst of the dog to have this great reward.(p.377).
Thus, the addition of also has preserved part of the meaning of exclamation
occurred in the ST.
4.4.4 Evaluation
It seems clear from the discussion presented above that all of the four
translators render the grammatical form of the rhetorical question correctly. The
fear of distortion of the rhetorical function and the inapperant interrogative form of
the original could be the reason behind using the most commonly used form of
interrogatives (i.e., yes-no questions) in the translated versions.
Similarly, all the translators insert certain lexical items that help in
establishing the illocutionary force of the rhetorical question. A comparison
between the ST and the TT reveals that the ST does not contain expressions
equivalent to the lexical items O and also. All of the four translators use the
technique of managing so as to indicate the pragmatic function of the original
rhetorical question. Managing, as Shunnaq (1998) defines it, is a phenomenon in
translation which means the manipulation of the TT in order to steer the situation
towards a certain goal (p.41). One way of doing that is by adding a lexical
element that does not have a counterpart in the ST. As a result, the illocutionary
force might be clearer, changed, or distorted.
In terms of rendering adequately the secondary meaning of the original
rhetorical question in general, table (7) reveals that Al-Maihbs translation has the
highest number of points, scoring the highest percentage (89%). Khan comes
second, scoring (81%). Amin and bin Razduq comes last with the percentage of
(78%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
32
28
29
Percentage
89%
78%
81%
More specifically, and in relation to the scores for the four levels of rhetorical
questions, table (8) shows that in terms of the syntactic level, Al-Maihb
translation ranks first with (100%) followed by both Amin and bin Razduq and
Khan who score (78%). As for the semantic level, Al-Maihb also scores the
highest number of points. Khan ranks the highest in the pragmatic level followed
by Al-Maihb and Amin and bin Razduq who score a similar number of points. As
for the aesthetic level, all of the four translators score (78%).
(4)
Level
Points &
Percentages
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin

Razduq
Khan
No. of points
Percentage
100%
78%
78%
No. of points
Semantic
Percentage
100%
78%
78%
Pragmatic
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
78%
Syntactic
Aesthetic
As shown in the two tables presented above, there are no significant

differences between the accuracy of the translated rhetorical questions. Hence, it
would be quite fair to consider the three translations of the rhetorical question
under discussion as being adequate.
4.5 HADITH (5)
The
Arabic
Text
" :
" : :"

.(1992138 " )
218. Do you know who is the bankrupt? (Al-Maihb ,1999, p.86).

AlMaihb
Amin & 218. Do you know who is the bankrupt? (Amin & bin Razduq ,1999,
Vol.1: p.224).
bin
Razduq
220. Do you know who is a pauper? (Khan ,1975, p.57).
Khan
Abu Hurairah relates that the Holy Prophet asked: Do you know who is the
bankrupt person? He was told: Among us a bankrupt is one who has nothing,
cash or property. He said: A bankrupt from among my people would be one who
faces the Day of Judgment with a record of salat and fasts and Zakat, but who will
have abused this one, and calumniated that one, and devoured the substance of a
third, and shed the blood of a fourth and beaten a fifth. Then each of them will be
allotted a portion of his good deeds. Should they not suffice, then their sins and
defaults will be transferred from them to him and he will be thrown into the Fire.

This Hadith is explaining the meaning of the bankrupt. He is described as
one whose good deeds are credited to the account of those who suffered at his
hand. A Muslim has to pay an equal attention to the performance of his prescribed
obligations as well as his dealings, manners, and morals. Salvation lies in the
proper fulfillment of both requirements (Al-Saboni, 2007).
The Prophet (PBUH) initiates his speech to his companions by the rhetorical
question " " Do you know who is the bankrupt?. He uses this
interrogative form not to know the answer but as a means of inducing fascination
and arousing interest, so that the addressees are stimulated and motivated to pay
special attention to the issue discussed.
This example shows three major effects of rhetorical questions in Hadith.

First, they are conducive to hearer/reader involvement to increase attentional
capacity and cognitive activation (Slater, 2002). Second, they serve to bring the
reader into participation in the texts dialogues and interactions with the events and
arguments reported in the text. Finally, they guide the reader to understand,
participate, and form judgments of these events and arguments.
4.5.3 Analysis
The type of this Hadith is a dialogue. It involves one speaker, the Prophet
(PBUH), speaking to his companions. The Hadith consists of conversational turns
and moves: an initiating move (the Prophet asks who the bankrupt is), a countering
move (his companions answer the question according to their knowledge), and a
resolving move (the Prophet gives his answer to the question asked) (Ish-Shihri,
2007).
In relation to the syntactic level, all of the translations have the interrogative
form Do you know who..?. This structure conveys some elements of the intended
meaning of arousing interest. This is because the use of this form means using a
strategy of involvement. The form do you uses the second person pronoun you.
It suggests the texts propensity toward calling upon the listener directly, thus
seeking both to influence his pathos, and draw him into the happenings of the
narrative. In this regard, empirical research, as cited in Roskos-Ewoldsen (2003),

finds that the use of the second person pronoun increases participants motivation
to attend to a message more than the same message conveyed through the use of
third person pronouns.
Yet, by preserving the opening position of the original question, the
translators convey the attention-arousing effect in their translations. They reflect
the inherent functional ability of rhetorical questions to be employed as discourse
openers. The opening position of the rhetorical question puts the hearer in a
particular frame of mind and prepares him to be receptive to what comes.
Additionally, it marks the discourse that follows as more interesting since it would
be an extension of the exordial rhetorical question (Badarneh, 2003).
As for the aesthetic level, keeping the same interrogative form of the original
conveys the function of arousing interest in the TT. It preserves the same feeling of
arousing desire and excitement, so that the addressees will keep thinking and wait
for the answer to come.
4.5.4 Evaluation
the scores of all the translators are nearly similar (84-87%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
30
30
31
Percentage
84%
84%
87%
Specifically speaking, table (10) indicates that Khan scores the highest
percentage in one level. All the translators score similar percentages in the
semantic and the pragmatic levels.
Table 10. The scores of specific levels for the translation of rhetorical
question (5)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
78%
No. of points
Percentage
89%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
78%
89%
The percentages of the translators are nearly the same in all levels. In short, it
would be fair to consider all of the three translations as being adequate.
4.6 HADITH (6)

The
Arabic
Text
:
: : :
.(188,1992)
372. When would be the Hour of Resurrection? (Al-Maihb,1999,

AlMaihb p.124).
Amin & 372. When will be the Hour (i.e., the Day of Resurrection)? (Amin & bin
Razduq ,1999, Vol.1: p.336).
bin
Razduq
372. When will the Judgment be? (Khan ,1975, p.83).
Khan

Anas relates that a bedouin asked the Holy Prophet: When will the
Judgment be? He countered with: What preparation have you made for it? The
man said: The love of Allah and His Messenger. The Holy Prophet said: You will
be with those you love.
The bedouin in this Hadith is asking the Prophet (PBUH) about the time of
the Day of Judgment. The Prophet replies saying that what is more important is to
show a true love of Allah and his Prophet in the practical life by strict performance
of Allahs duties and obligations (Al-Hilali, 2004; Al-Othaimeen, 2004).
The bedouins question does not seek an answer as much as it reflects the
speakers feelings of impatience due to the long time of waiting the Day of
Judgment or as Al-Ammar (2003) puts it:
.(399 ." " )
Showing impatience because of the long time of waiting (p.399).

Interestingly enough, Larson (1984) lists the rhetorical function of indicating
impatience as one purpose of English rhetorical questions. The question when are
you coming? implies the meaning of come right now/ I cannot wait any more!.
He adds that such a form can be used in a situation where a wife loses her patience
and calls her husband to ask him to come home immediately.
4.6.3 Analysis
The following rhetorical question is a wh-question with temporal query
introduced by the interrogative particle " "when. This particle is considered as
unmarked interrogative pronoun because its function is reflected through the
propositional content or contextual factors (Badarneh, 2003). All translators
succeed by the use of when as this interrogative particle is used in English to
enquire about the time of both past and future events (Ateeq, 1985).
Amin and bin Razduq as well as Khan succeed by using the modal will as
opposed to Al-Maihb who uses would. Will is more suitable than would for
two reasons. First, the original question is talking about the time of a day that will
occur in the future. Thus, using will is closer to the ST. Second, as the Judgment
Day will definitely come, will is more suitable to the context. It indicates
certainty in contrast with would which implies a possibility or probability of the
action that is going to happen (Azar, 1999).
The illocutionary effect is not accurately conveyed in Amin and bin Razduqs
translation due to their use of brackets. Mentioning the phrase the Day of
Resurrection as an explanation for the term the Hour reduces the illocutionary
force as it produces a rather lengthy question which might distract the reader.
What is more important is the conclusion that is drawn from the analysis of
this example. The rhetorical function of this rhetorical question (i.e., indicating
impatience) can not be indicated by the surface lexical or syntactic form. The
translation when will the Judgment be? does not make explicit the illocutionary
intent of the speaker. Context is the only signal for the rhetorical function of this
rhetorical question. Yet, translators can make the implicit illocutionary force
explicit by adding certain performative verbs or adverbs denoting attitude such as
cried or ah. For example, Ali (1965) conveys the function of indicating
impatience in the following verse by the addition of the verb cried before the
rhetorical question:
"
(214 : " )
Or do you think That Ye shall enter the Garden (of Bliss) without such (trials) as
come to those who passed away from you? They encountered suffering and
adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Apostle and those of faith who
were with him cried: when (will come) the help of God? (p.83-4).
By means of explicit expression, Ali (1965) indicates his awareness of the

rhetorical force of the question and reflects it in his translation.
Put simply, not all rhetorical functions can be made explicit in translation.
There are some context-generated functions which get their most prominent
functions from their contexts. A translator can add some explicit hints to the
context through which the TT readers can discern the rhetorical function of the
original rhetorical question.
4.6.4 Evaluation
In terms of the general scores for this rhetorical question, table (11) shows
that Khans translation has the highest percentage, followed by that of Amin and
bin Razduq. Al-Maihb comes last with the percentage of (78%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
28
31
33
Percentage
78%
87%
92%
percentage in two levels. All translators score a similar percentage in the syntactic
level. Al-Maihb comes last in two levels.
question (6)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
89%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
56%
78%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
89%
100%
Khans translation of the rhetorical question would be considered adequate

while that of Al-Maihb and Amin and bin Razduq medium.
4.7 HADITH (7)
The
Arabic
Text
:
: . : " " :
" : :" "

.(2121992" ).
AlMaihb
Amin &
bin
Razduq
Khan
431. Are you pleased to form a fourth of the inhabitants of Paradise? (AlMaihb ,1999, p. 142).
431. Are not you pleased that you will constitute one-fourth of the
inhabitants of Jannah? (Amin & bin Razduq, 1999, Vol.1: p.395).
434. Would it please you if you were to be a quarter of the dwellers of
Paradise? (Khan ,1975, p.96).

Ibn Masud relates: About forty of us were with the Holy Prophet in a tent,
when he asked us: Will it not please you that you will constitute a quarter of
the dwellers of Paradise? We answered: Yes. Then he asked: Would you be
pleased if you were to be a third of the dwellers of Paradise? We answered: Yes.
He said: By Him in Whose hands is the life of Muhammad, I hope that you will
be one half of the dwellers of Paradise. This is because none will enter Paradise
except a soul that is in full submission to Allah, and your proportion among the
pagans is like that of white hair on the skin of a black ox, or that of black hair on
the skin of a red ox.
This rhetorical question has the illocutionary force of giving glad tidings
"". This means a speech which causes happiness as a result of the
gratification of a wish. It leads the addressees to show the feelings of joy,
happiness, and pleasure (The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, 2009).
The Hadith gives glad tidings to those who believe and do righteous and good
deeds. It reveals that there will be a large number of Muslims in Jannah (half of its
occupants) (Al-Saboni, 2007; Al-Asqalani, 2005, vol.4).
The Prophet (PBUH) uttered the question Would it please you if you were to
be a quarter of the dwellers of Paradise? not in an attempt to get an answer. He
already knows that it would be of a great pleasure for all of his companions to be
the occupants of Jannah. Yet, he uses the interrogative form to convey this glade
news because of two reasons: (1) because of the great value of this good news, the
Prophet (PBUH) prefers not to reveal it in a normal way by a declarative sentence;
and (2) to prepare his companions psychologically to receive this happy news
gradually.
4.7.3 Analysis
The interrogative particle " "hamza is translated by all translators as a yesno question using are and would. Amin & bin Razduqs yes-no question,
however, is the most accurate one in reflecting the intended rhetorical function.
This is because of their use of a negative yes-no rhetorical question. A negative
yes-no rhetorical question serves the illocutionary force of giving glad tidings in
two ways. First, it expresses the illocutionary force of a positive assertion (see
section 4.2.3). It means that the Prophet (PBUH) asserts and is sure that his
companions will constitute one-fourth of the inhabitants of Jannah. No doubt, it

is a basic requirement for the speaker who is giving the happy news to be sure that
what he says is certainly true. Second, a negative yes-no rhetorical question helps
in reflecting that the Prophet (PBUH) implicitly seeks to elicit the hearers
agreement with the proposition. Thus, he is preparing them psychologically to hear
the happy news.
Another point related to the use of the negative form and which helps in
reflecting the illocutionary force of giving glad tidings is the use of the more
formal are not as opposed to the less formal contracted form arent. This more
emphatic form strengthens the authoritative tone of the Prophet (PBUH) to his
companions, and hence highlights that the Prophet is in a formal situation asserting
a happy news.
In relation to the use of modals, will in Amin and bin Razduqs translation is
more suitable to the context than Khans would. First person use of will,
Greenbaum and Quirk (1990) claim, indicates promising some future action to
happen. Would, on the other hand, conveys an impression of probability or
possibility of the action to happen. Certainly, this is not the meaning reflected in
the rhetorical question. The Prophet (PBUH), as mentioned earlier, is sure that the
action will happen in the future. Khans translation can be improved by using the
modal will in his rhetorical question to be will it please you.
Another weakness in Khans translation is the use of the conditional

conjunction if. Conditional rhetorical questions convey the speakers doubt or
incredulity in the proposition of the apodosis (Badarneh, 2003). What strengthens
that feeling of doubt is the tense used in the conditional rhetorical question. The
main clause has the conditional tense would please and the if-clause uses the past
simple were. Conditional sentences with these tenses are used to talk about the
consequences of a hypothetical action with the meaning of untrue in the future as
in: if I wrote my essay this afternoon, I would have time to go out tonight. The
sentence means that though it is still morning, I think it is less likely that I will do
this (Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 2005, p.R33) (see section 4.13.3).
Finally, maintaining the question form by all the translators helps in reflecting
the essence of rhetorical questions as involvement-inducing forms. This
involvement is necessary for the function of giving glad tidings as it will prepare
the hearer psychologically to hear the happy news. Additionally, the question form,
as
opposed
to
declarative
statements,
arouses
the
curiosity
of
the
companions/readers to hear what is coming. This is what Roskos-Ewoldsen (2003)

points out: when we hear a statement, our curiosity is not aroused. Thus,
according to the awareness hypothesis, rhetorical questions serve to heighten our
curiosity and increase how much we think about the argument and message topic
(p.308).
4.7.4 Evaluation
that Al-Maihbs translation has the highest percentage followed by that of Khan.
Amin and bin Razduq come last with the percentage of (75%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
31
27
29
Percentage
87%
75%
81%
Specifically speaking, table (14) reveals that Al-Maihb scores the highest
percentage in two levels. Al-Maihb scores similar percentages of that of Khan in
the semantic level. Amin and bin Razduq come last in two levels but score the
same percentage of that of Khan when it comes to the syntactic and the pragmatic
levels.
question (7)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
78%
78%
No. of points
Percentage
89%
78%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
78%
78%
No. of points
Percentage
89%
67%
78%
As the statistics above show, the respondents prefer Al-Maihbs translation

over that of Khan and Amin and bin Razduq. This might be due to the direct
language used by Al-Maihb. Amin and bin Razduq use a negative form which
does not occur in the original. Khan, similarly, uses a conditional sentence which
makes the structure of his question different from that of the original. Yet, to the
researcher, equivalence is to be achieved not only of the propositional content (by
preserving the lexical items and the syntactic structure of the original). Reflecting
the pragmatic function (i.e., illocutionary force) in translation is of an equal
importance. After all, a translator has to produce a translated rhetorical question in
a way that aims at achieving the intended message and effect on the TL reader.
Based on these disagreeing point of views (that of the researcher and the
respondents), an equitable judgment would be considering Al-Maihbs and Amin
and bin Razduqs translation as medium while that of Khan as inadequate.
4.8 HADITH (8)
The
Arabic
Text
" :
:
! :
.(1992218 " )
444. Woe unto it! Where are you taking it? (Al-Maihb,1999, p. 147).
AlMaihb
Amin & 444. Woe to it. Where are you taking it? (Amin & bin Razduq ,1999,
Vol.1: p.410).
bin
Razduq
447. Woe to it, where are you taking it? (Khan ,1975, p.100).
Khan

Abu said Al-Khudri relates that the Holy Prophet said: When the bier is
lifted above the shoulders of the pall-bearers, if the corpse is that of a righteous
man, it urges: Go forward with me; go forward with me. If it is that of an
unrighteous person, it says: Woe to it! where are you taking it? Its voice is heard
by everything except man, and if man heard it, he would be struck dead.
This Hadith is explaining the feelings of the corpse when the bier is lifted
above the shoulders of bearers. A righteous mans corpse will be in a great haste to
the grave in order to enjoy the divine blessings. An unrighteous mans corpse, on
the other hand, will regret being blinded by committing wrong doings and wish not
to be sent to the grave. In general, this Hadith is intended to induce people to
virtues so that after death, one has not to say woe to me! Where are you taking
me?! (Al-Othaimeen, 2004, vol.1; Al-Hilali, 2004, vol.2).
The rhetorical question " " ! Woe to it, where are you
taking it? expresses the rhetorical function of lamentation (1). This is an expressive
speech act which conveys the speakers feelings of great sadness and
disappointment. In general, lamentation rhetorical questions are self-directed and
they serve as self-reproach (Anzilotti, 1982). More specifically, the rhetorical
question in this Hadith is expressing the sorrowful feelings and the regret of an
unrighteous mans corpse for wasting the life-time in committing bad deeds.
4.8.3 Analysis
Generally speaking, no significant differences exist between the three
translations. Nevertheless, there are some remarks that seem necessary to mention.
First, the phrase "! " woe to it! makes the rhetorical question a device
for mourning ones own misfortune. It introduces the speakers (i.e., the corpse)
inner feelings of sorrow when it recounts its bad actions. Successfully, the phrase
woe unto/ to it! prefacing the three translations conveys this sorrowful inner
feelings since in English this phrase is an interjection used in a lamentation sense
(Al-Essa, 1990).
Second, Al-Maihb is the only translator who succeeds in conveying the

exclamation function, which usually accompanies lamentation, by his use of the
exclamatory mark. Badarneh (2003) claims that there is a strong affinity between
rhetorical questions conveying lamentation and wonder. Both are emotional
utterances expressing the speakers inner feelings. This could be felt in Alis
translation (1965) of a rhetorical question that occurs in the Holy Quran. The
question expresses lamentation and wonder. Sinners express their mourning when
they see the record of their misdeeds:
"
.(49: " )
And the Book (of Deeds) will be placed (before you); and thou wilt see the sinful
in great terror because of what is (recorded) therein; they will say, Ah! Woe to
us! What a book is this! It leaves out nothing small or great, but takes account
thereof! (p.743).
By using the exclamatory mark, the translator captures the two feelings of
lamentation and wonder.
When it comes to the rhetorical question under investigation, one could notice
that it accompanies two feelings: (1) the corpse is addressing itself in a mournful
tone (lamentation); (2) it is wondering how all of its life was spent in committing
misdeeds (wonder). Thus, it would have been better if all translators do as Al-
Maihb does by adding the exclamatory mark, so that their translations convey the
rhetorical function of wonder that usually exists along with that of lamentation.
The above-mentioned remark leads to an important observation. Punctuation
could be a means in helping to indicate the multi-functions of a rhetorical question.
Multifunctionality means the capacity of the rhetorical question to fulfill more
communicative functions than one (Ilie, 1994). The questioning form, context, and
certain lexical items can convey the most prominent function. At the same time,
however, punctuation can convey the other accompanying functions.
4.8.4 Evaluation
that Al-Maihbs translation has the highest percentage followed by that of Khan
and Amin and bin Razduq.
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
32
31
31
Percentage
89%
87%
87%
Specifically speaking, table (16) reveals that all translators score similar
percentages in three levels. Al-Maihb scores the highest percentage in the
syntactic level.
question (8)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
100%
100%
100%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
78%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
78%

differences in the accuracy of the three translations. Hence, it would be fair to
consider all the three translations as being adequate.
4.9 HADITH (9)
The
Arabic
Text
" : " "

"!
.(2301992)
483. Have you any property but what you eat and use up, what you, dress
and thereby make worn out, or what you give as charity and that is sent
forward (saved for you)? (Al-Maihb ,1999, p.156).
Amin & 483. Do you own of your wealth other than what you eat and consume,
and what you wear and wear out, or what you give in Sadaqah (charity) (to
bin
Razduq those who deserve it), and that what you will have in stock for yourself.
(Amin & bin Razduq ,1999, Vol.1: p.436).
486. While out of his property only that is his which he eats and
Khan
consumes, and wears and wears out and spends in charity and sends ahead.
(Khan ,1975, p.105).
AlMaihb

Abdullah ibn Shikir relates: I came to the Holy Prophet while he was reciting
sura Al-Takathur (Chapter 102) of the Quran. He said: Man says: My property,
my property. Have you any property but what you eat and use up, what you
dress and thereby make worn out, or what you give as charity and send
ahead?
This Hadith highlights the persons avidity for wealth. One will not get of his
wealth except that he spends during his lifetime in eating, wearing, and in charity.
Wealth should be spend in the ways favored by Allah so that one can find good
deeds, which are the real valuable treasures, in the Afterlife (Al-Saboni, 2007).
The rhetorical question "
"! Have you any property but what you eat and use up, what you
dress and thereby make worn out, or what you give as charity and send ahead? is
not used to indicate its primary meaning nor it is meant to be answered. However,
it is used to indicate the rhetorical function of negation. This is a function which is
meant to negate what is mentioned after the interrogative particle. The
interrogative particle can be replaced with any of the negative particles " "
laa, lan, laysa (Al-Malik, 1995). What stresses the function of negation for this
rhetorical question is the occurrence of both " "illaa and the interrogative
particle " "hal. Tawfeeg (1985) mentions that:
.(64." "" " )
Whenever illaa and the interrogative particle occur together, the question is
meant to indicate negation (p.64).
Hence, the rhetorical question in this Hadith is implicitly negative." "hal
does not license negation. Negation is rather determined by, and inferred from, the
context along with the occurrence of " "illaa with the interrogative particle
" "hal.
4.9.3 Analysis
An important fact that one should bear in mind when dealing with negation
rhetorical questions is that they combine two assertive acts: denial (see action
4.10.3) and assertion (see sections 4.2.3 and 4.14.3). Searle (1969) mentions that
assertives (formerly, representatives) have the purpose of committing the speaker
to something and to the truth of the expressed proposition. Hence, what affects the
rendering of the rhetorical functions of denial and assertion is also applicable to
negation as the latter is actually a mixture of the formers.
A closer look at the rhetorical question "
" Have you any property but what you eat and use up,
what you dress and thereby make worn out, or what you give as charity and send
ahead? denies that one will own of his wealth other than what he eats and uses
up, what he dresses and thereby makes worn out, or what he gives as charity and
sends ahead. It also asserts that one will not own of his wealth other than what he
eats and uses up, what he dresses and thereby makes worn out, or what he gives as
charity and sends ahead.
Syntactically speaking, the four translators differ on the syntactic form used
in their translations. Both Al-Maihb and Amin and bin Razduq use interrogative
structures while Khan uses the form of a positive statement. The use of the latter
form causes some deviation in conveying the rhetorical function of negation. This
is because the free form morpheme " "hal in yes-no questions adds a stronger
emphatic effect on the statement about which the question is asked (Cantarino,
1974, vol.1, p.139). Moreover, the conversion of the question form to a positive
declarative statement reduces the involvement of the hearer/reader as the meaning

is given directly to him. Consequently, the effect of the emphasis which is given to
the fact that the Prophet (PBUH) wants his companions to recognize and remember
all their lifetime is reduced.
Put simply, Amin and bin Razduq as well as Al-Maihb succeed in their use
of the strategy of transference (i.e., translating the rhetorical question into English
by keeping their apparent interrogative form). Khan, on the other hand, fails in
producing the effect of negation by his usage of the strategy of conversion (i.e.,
transferring the rhetorical question into a statement). If the statement structure is to
be used, it would have been better, however,if Khan inserts certain indicative
words as assuredly or most assuredly to convey the strong emphatic effect of
the original. Amin and bin Razduqs misuse of the full stop at the end of their
question keeps the reader confused as whether the question has the structure of a
statement or a question.
The interrogative form used by Al-Maihb and Amin and bin Razduq serves
also the function of denial that usually accompanies negation. Their use of a
positive yes-no question form is related to the reversed-polarity principle. To
Gatti (1999), a yes-no question in the affirmative form expresses the function of
denial. Thus, Al-Maihbs and Amin and bin Razduqs interrogative structures
make the denial stronger than it is in Khans declarative from. This, in return,
makes the negation of the action stronger than if expressed in a statement form.
Lexically speaking, Amin and bin Razduq mention the original word ""
Sadaqah in transliteration followed by its translation in brackets as charity.
Using both words distracts the reader as well as reduces the illocutionary force of
negation due to producing rather lengthy question. Transliteration suffices with the
term" "Sadaqah since this word is too culture-specific to be translated (ElZeini, 1994). Translation would be better if mentioned in the footnote to clarify
more the meaning of the term. What affects the function of negation more
negatively is Amin and bin Razduqs explanation of the word charity. They
enclose the information to those who deserve it in the body of the translated
rhetorical question. It is known that charity in Islam would not be so unless it is
spent for those who deserve it. It also does not refer to giving money to the poor
only. It covers other actions on the spiritual level as helping others and saying good
words (Saleh, 2002; Azami, 1977).
Apart from the syntactic and the semantic levels and in relation to the
aesthetic level, Al-Maihb and Amin and bin Razduq succeed in their use of the
strategy of transference. Though Khans strategy of conversion states the message
clearly and directly, preserving the interrogative form serves positively the
rhetorical function of negation in two ways: (1) it induces hearers/readers
involvement by calling for their contribution to the issue concerned (i.e., to

reconstruct the meaning indirectly conveyed to them); (2) it keeps the hearer/reader
in a constant state of interaction with the text since the interrogative structure calls
for implicit and cognitive filling of the gap created by it (Anzilotti, 1982; Aziz,
1998).
4.9.4 Evaluation
that Khans translation has the lowest percentage. Al-Maihb and Amin and bin
Razduq score the same percentage (87%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
31
31
25
Percentage
87%
87%
70%
percentage in two levels. He scores a similar percentage to that of Khan in the
pragmatic level. Khan comes last in three levels. Amin and bin Razduq score the
same percentage of that of Al-Maihb when it comes to the aesthetic level.
question (9)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
67%
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
78%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
89%
67%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
67%
As the statistics above show, Khan scores the lowest percentage in the
syntactic and the aesthetic levels. As discussed earlier, this is due to his use of the
strategy of conversion rather than that of transference. Based on the analysis and
the percentages presented above, it would be fair to consider only Al-Maihbs
translation as being adequate while that of Amin & bin Razduq as medium and that
of Khan as inadequate.
4.10 HADITH (10)

The
Arabic
Text
:
:

" : " !" :

1992 " )!
.(284
AlMaihb
Amin &
bin
Razduq
Khan
651. Do you intercede to infringe one of Gods legal limits? (Al-Maihb

,1999, p.197).
651.Do you intercede when one of the legal punishments ordained by
Allah has been violated? (Amin & bin Razduq ,1999, Vol.1: p.559).
654. Do you seek to intercede in the matter of the limits prescribed by
Allah? (Khan ,1975, p.133).

Ayesha relates that Quraish were worried about the case of a Makhzumi
woman who had committed theft and wondered who should intercede on her
behalf with the Holy Prophet. Some said: who can venture to do so except Usamah
ibn Zaid who is much loved by the Holy Prophet? So Usamah spoke to him and the
Holy Prophet said to him: God heavens! How could you seek to intercede in the
matter of the limits prescribed by Allah?! Then he stood up and made an
address in which he said: Those who were before you were ruined because they
would let off a high-placed one if he committed theft and would exact the
prescribed penalty from a poor one who stole. I call Allah to witness that were
Fatimah, daughter of Muhammed, to steal, I would cut off her hand.
In this Hadith, the rhetorical question is uttered by the Prophet (PBUH) to his
companion, Usamah ibn Zaid, who spoke to the Prophet in favor of the woman
who had committed theft.
Through the form of an interrogative, the Prophet (PBUH) disgraces the
action of intercession and reproaches its doer in a way that denotes that the action
ought not to have happened. The criminals social status or his familys reputation,
if any, should not obstruct the administration of justice. Law and retribution rise
above all discriminations and social hierarchy (Al-Saboni, 2007). As a matter of
fact, the denunciation
(2)
function of this rhetorical question is reinforced through
the sequential organization used in the original text. The rhetorical question
communicating the reproach is immediately followed by an assertive statement of
the Prophet (PBUH) which blocks any justification for Usamahs behavior (AlOthaimeen, 2004, vol.1; Al-Asqalani, 2005).
4.10.3 Analysis
As mentioned above, this rhetorical question is an example of an indirect
illocutionary act of denunciation using the interrogative form. All translators
achieve a total syntactic equivalence to the original. They use the yes-no question
form as an equivalent to the affirmative verb " "intercede and the

interrogative particle " "hamza. By using this form, all translated rhetorical
questions follow the reversed-polarity principle which states that a yes-no
question in the affirmative form conveys a negative judgment, or has the
illocutionary force of denial (Gatti, 1999). As such, the translated rhetorical
questions make the denunciation sense stronger than it would be in a declarative
form. Simply put, the denunciation function in all the three translated questions is
expressed adequately and the yes-no form marks the speakers attitude of a
stronger rejection (Corbett & Connors, 1999).
Yet, in all the translated questions, the use of the auxiliary do marks some
deviation in the illocutionary force of denunciation. In the Arabic form, there is
some element of the meaning of surprise and exclamation combined with that of
denunciation (Yusif, 2000). The force of surprise was indicated in the original
question by the intonation used. Therefore, the exclamation mark is used in the ST.
The use of the auxiliary do by all of the four translators reduces the sense of
surprise that usually accompanies denial and seems to turn the original rhetorical
question into a real one. A stronger rhetorical sense would be achieved if the
phrases how could, how can, or how would are used or if exclamation marks
are used at the end of the translated questions. Another way would be inserting
some English denunciation formulas as God heavens or God forbid so that the
rhetorical questions gets stronger rejection and denunciation feelings (Al-Essa,

1990).
In relation to the semantic level, the four translators reflect the meaning of
denunciation through their translation of every word mentioned in the original text
without any omission. For instance, the translation of " " Gods legal
limits, though it is already known to any Muslim that the limits are only for
God, signals that the Prophet (PBUH) does not have the authority to excuse any
body from these limits as they are precious things to God. Hence, the effect of
denunciation becomes stronger and that of rejecting intercession more obvious
(Abu-Mousa, 2000, p.321).
When it comes to the aesthetic level, the four translators preserve the question
form of the original rhetorical question. This is because in both Arabic and
English, denunciation is often more effective when conveyed indirectly by means
of a rhetorical question. When denunciation is expressed by a form of a rhetorical
question in English, Haverkate (1997) mentions, it threatens both the positive and
the negative face of the addressee. The positive is threatened because the
addressees behavior is criticized in the moment of the action (similar to Arabic
when using denunciation to reject the act in the present). The negative face is also
threatened because the addressee is indirectly required not to display the same
behavior in the future (also similar to Arabic when using denunciation to threaten
the addressee not to display the same behavior in the future). Generally speaking,
the three translations reflect the aesthetic function of denunciation which is meant
to urge the listener to think about what is said and to reconsider it again.
4.10.4 Evaluation
that Al-Maihb and Khan score nearly the same percentage (95% and 92%,
respectively). Amin & bin Razduq come last with the percentage of (78%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
34
28
33
Percentage
95%
78%
92%
percentage in two levels. Khan scores a similar percentage to that of Al-Maihb in
the pragmatic level. Amin & bin Razduq come last in the semantic and pragmatic
levels, but score the same percentage of that of Khan when it comes to the
syntactic level.
question (10)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
100%
78%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
89%
56%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
89%
89%
100%
It is clear from the statistics presented above that there is a slight difference
between Al-Maihb and Khan in relation to their success in maintaining functional
equivalence. According to the respondents, Amin & bin Razduqs translation is the
weakest, especially when it comes to the pragmatic level. To the researcher, this
might be due to the length of the translated rhetorical question, which consequently
has its negative effect on the beauty of the illocutionary force existing in the
original. El-Zeini (1994) finds that the original aims at producing a further
reaching illocutionary force by producing equally short sentences [italics added]
(p.175). Producing rather lengthy sentences reduces the illocutionary force. A very
clear example is the use of the redundant phrase when one of the legal
punishments ordained by Allah. It would suffice if this phrase is translated as
one of Allahs punishments. In short, it would be fair to consider Al-Maihbs
and Khans translation as being adequate while that of Amin & bin Razduq as
medium.
4.11 HADITH (11)
The
Arabic
Text
" :
: :

.(439,1992" )
AlMaihb
Amin &
bin
Razduq
Khan
1216. Where are the fasters? (Al-Maihb, 1999, p. 327).

1216. Where are those who observe fasting? (Amin & bin Razduq, 1999,
Vol.2: p.929).
1222. Where are those who observed the fast regularly? (Khan, 1975,
p.213).

Sahl ibn Saad relates that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: There is a gate in
Paradise called Ar-Rayyan through which only those who are regular in observing
the fast and no one else will enter on the Day of Judgment. A call will go forth:
Where are the fasters? They will step forth and no one will enter except them.
After they entered, the gate will be closed and no one else will enter thereafter.
This rhetorical question is an example of Searles directives (1969). They are
attempts by the speaker to get the hearer to do something.
The Prophet (PBUH) is informing his companions of the great reward to be
gained from fasting the Holy Month of Ramadan3 (Al-Bustani & Muhammad,
2006; Al-Asqalani, 2005). Fasters are the only ones who will enter in the Day of
Judgment from a door named Ar-Rayyan. This information would encourage and
exhort all Muslims to fast enthusiastically. It would also lead them to fast
voluntary fasts over and above the obligatory ones (Yusuf, 1999).
A closer look at the above-mentioned rhetorical question in its context reveals
two points: (1) it is a rhetorical question intended to give a polite request to the
listeners (i.e., exhorting Muslims to fast). As such, this rhetorical question is
uttered by the Prophet (PBUH) not only to inform listeners of his wish. He also
expects that they will act as requested. The rhetorical question is thus informative
and instrumental (Herrmann, 1982). It is informative in the sense that the Prophet
(PBUH) utters what he knows will be most informative to his companions (i.e.,
fasters will enter from a door named Ar-Rayyan). The rhetorical question is also
instrumental as listeners, in most cases, can reconstruct the whole from the part
they heard (i.e., to fast in order to enter from Ar-Rayyans door); (2) In addition to
the function of exhortation, the rhetorical question expresses the function of
inducting fascination and arousing interest by posing the information in a question
form so that the addressees will keep thinking and wait for the answer to come (see
section 4.5.3).
In addition to the issue of politeness and inducing fascination, the rhetorical
question " " Where are the fasters? is a highly indirect request. This is
because it does not contain in its propositional content the action requested (Blumkulka, 1985; Al-Ammar, 2003). The question is an open-ended one that realizes
exhortation and request by its contextual reference (i.e., the great reward to be
gained for fasting). In other words, the Prophet (PBUH) does not refer explicitly to
the act the hearer/reader is requested to do by saying " "soumuu (observe
fasting). Rather, he leaves it to his companions to infer, and hopefully perform,
the action requested.
4.11.3 Analysis
There are some linguistic signals used in the translations that either preserve
or distort the rhetorical function of the original rhetorical question (i.e., exhortation
and polite request).
First, where as an equivalent to " "ayna in the three translations reflects
the motivational function of the original. It is obvious that this where- rhetorical
question does not signal a lack of knowledge regarding the place of the fasters.
Instead, it has a motivational function: to induce the fascination of the Prophets
companions and to arouse their interest so that they are stimulated and motivated
to pay special attention to the issue discussed. Further, the where- rhetorical
question signals the indirect request of the original question (i.e., to fast). Al-Essa
(1990) states that in both languages, Arabic and English, the indirect request is
realized linguistically by using the interrogative particle " "ayna where.
Where is the pen? means bring the pen. Similarly, where are the fasters?
means fast.
Second, by preserving the interrogative form of the original question, the
translators reflect the politeness of the request in their translations. Al-Hilali (2004)
says:
"
.(215." )
The question form is used to politely request the hearer to do the action
rather than ordering him to do it directly (p.215).
Similar to Al-Hilalis view (2004) is that of Leech (1983) who states that
indirect illocutions tend to be more polite (a) because they increase the degree of
optionality; and (b) because the more indirect the illocution is, the more diminished
the tentative its force tends to be (p.108).
In short, the interrogative form used by the translators reflects the request
indirectly and politely. In both languages Arabic and English, interrogative request
is more polite than the straight forward request used in an imperative form (AlEssa, 1990).
Finally, an important point to be noticed from the analysis presented above is
that this highly indirect rhetorical question is understood and rendered in the
translations as an act of exhortation and a polite request by grammatical, lexical,
and contextual analysis clues. Interestingly enough, this finding is in consonance
with Mittwochs view (1978) that to infer the illocutionary force of any particular
utterance, we make use not only of the grammatical and lexical clues in the
sentence uttered but of clues provided by the context and the extra-linguistic
knowledge (p.33). This finding also recalls the one mentioned with the function
of indicating impatience (see section 4.6.3).
4.11.4 Evaluation
that Khans and Amin and bin Razduqs translation have the highest percentage
followed by that of Al-Maihb (81%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
29
30
30
Percentage
81%
84%
84%
percentage in one level. All translators score similar percentages in the semantic
level. Al-Maihb comes last in two levels.
question (11)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
78%
No. of points
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Percentage
89%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
78%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
78%
78%
As the statistics above show, no significant difference in the percentages of

the translations exists. All translations are, therefore, considered to be adequate.
4.12 HADITH (12)
The
Arabic
Text
:
:
":" " :
" :"
.(4581992 !" ): "
1297. Are you able to enter Your Mosque, when the fighter in Gods cause
sets out, and stand for prayer but never lag, and fast but never break your
fast? (Al-Maihb ,1999, p.344).
Amin & 1298. One who goes but for Jihad in the Cause of Allah is like a person
who observes Saum (fasting), stands in Salat (prayer) constantly, and does
bin
Razduq not exhibit any lassitude in fasting and prayer until the participant of Jihad
in the way of Allah returns. (Amin & bin Razduq ,1999, Vol.2: p.974).
1303. Have you the strength that when a person goes forth to strive in the
Khan
cause of Allah You should enter the mosque and stand in Prayer and not
interrupt it and observe the fast and not break it (till he should return)?
(Khan ,1975, p.223).
AlMaihb
Abu Hurariah relates that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was asked: Messenger of
Allah, what other good deed equals striving in the cause of Allah? He answered:
you cannot do it. The Companions repeated twice or thrice the same question
and each time the Prophet (PBUH) answered: you cannot do it. Then, he added:
Have you the strength that when a person goes forth to strive in the cause of
Allah you should enter the mosque and stand in Prayer and not interrupt it
and go on fasting without breaking it? The man replied: Who would have the
strength to do this?
This Hadith is talking about the virtues of Jihaad (fighting in the cause of
Allah). It is the most meritorious act (Yusuf, 1999). As long as a mujaahid (fighter
for Allahs Cause) is engaged in Jihaad, he is like a person who keeps himself
occupied in Salat (prayers) at night and fasts in the daytime (Al-Asqalani,2005).
The question
" Have you the strength that when a person goes forth to strive in the cause
of Allah you should enter the mosque and stand in Prayer and not interrupt it and
go on fasting without breaking it? glorifies and exalts the virtue of Jihaad (AlMalik, 1995; Al-Bustani & Muhammad, 2006; Al-Asqalani, 2005; Al-Othameen,
2004, vol.1). By listing a number of impossible tasks, the Prophet (PBUH) knows
that his companions definitely can not bear them. Al-Saboni (2007) adds:
"
"( )
.(431.)
The reward of the mujaahid is equal to that of a person who worships God
day and night without exhibiting any lassitude or weariness in performing prayers
and fasting. Certainly, nobody has the strength to carry it out. Thus, the Prophet
(PBUH) keeps repeating you have not the strength to do it (p.431).
The Prophet (PBUH), however, mentions these intolerable actions to express
the great virtue of Jihaad and the reward of mujaahid. What stresses this point is
that the question `" " What other good deed equals striving
in the cause of Allah? was repeated twice or three times and each time the Prophet
(PBUH) answers: you have not the strength to carry it out (Al-Hilali, 2004; AlBustani and Muhammad, 2006; Ibn-Alaan, 2004).
4.12.3 Analysis
The rhetorical question in this Hadith is an example of Searles expressives
(1969). Its illocutionary point is to express the psychological state of the Prophet
(PBUH) (i.e., glorification) about a state of affairs (i.e., Jihaad) specified in the
propositional content.
Two major features are noticed in the above-mentioned question: (1) the
Prophets companion takes the question as a genuine one and provides an answer
to it; (2) the Prophet (PBUH) has a hidden motive of asking the question, not
perceived by his companion, and hence has no real interest in his companions
answer. Rather, the Prophet (PBUH) employs the question rhetorically as a preface
for expressing the greatness of Jihaad.
The rhetorical function (i.e., glorification) is neither assigned to the Prophets
question explicitly (by performative clues) nor by linguistic signals (indicative
words or intonation). However, the Prophets question can be interpreted nonliterally only on the basis of its situational context (Al-Essa, 1990). This refers to
the conditions which indicate that the question uttered expresses the Prophets
intentions to his companion (Sadock, 1974; Emery, 2004; Baker, 1992; Austin,
1962; Abdel-Hafiz, 2003). Put differently, the question lacks any linguistic clues
that reflect its rhetorical function. It is only the context which indicates that the
Prophets interrogative utterance is a rhetorical question. This is what Austin
(1962) emphasizes when he considers the circumstances of an utterance an
exceedingly important aid in the recognition of the illocutionary force of
utterances (p.76).
A closer look at the context of the rhetorical question shows that the question
" " What other good deed equals striving in the cause of
Allah? was repeated two or three times and each time the Prophet (PBUH)
answers: you have not the strength to carry it out (Al-Hilali, 2004; Al-Bustani &
Muhammad, 2006). Ibn-Alaan (2004) comments by saying that this indicates the
great virtue of Jihaad to the extent that no action is equal to it in reward. AlAsqalani (2005) adds that even the reply of the Prophets companion "
"! Who would have the strength to do this? indicates a clear virtue of Jihaad
that no other good deed equals it in reward.
Al-Hilalis comment (2004) provides another insight regarding the
interpretation of the rhetorical function of the question. He says in relation to the
function of the question:
.(422." " )
Glorifying Jihaad as it is equal in reward to all the good deeds mentioned
(p.422).
The good deeds that the Prophet (PBUH) talks about are mentioned in the
question (i.e., Salat (praying) and Saum (fasting). This means that the
propositional content or the semantic structure of the question can be a clue of its
rhetorical function. The Prophet (PBUH) and all Muslims know that
praying
without interruption and fasting without breaking until the mujaahid returns are
impossible things to do. Accordingly, these shared beliefs play an important role in
identifying and agreeing upon the question as indicating the rhetorical function of
glorification.
In sum, when explicit signals are absent, two important indicators of a
questions rhetorical function are: (1) its situational context; and (2) its
propositional content or semantic structure.
Yet, there are some errors that occur in the translations and negatively affect
the rendering of the rhetorical function of glorification. First, Amin and bin
Razduq as well as Khan use the collocation observe fasting. To observe means
to conform or to pay attention to Saum (fasting) (Collins English Dictionary, 2000;
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 2005). The verb does not convey the sense
of perfection implied in the ST. This use of the inaccurate connotation reduces the
semantic features of the original and narrows the scope of meaning. The correct
translation would simply be to fast or fasting while observing all the
requirements completely.
Second, Amin and bin Razduq change the order of the good deeds mentioned
in the original. They place Saum before Salat. This affects the function of
glorification negatively as the good deeds in the ST are arranged according to their
importance and virtue as well as their difficulty of performance.
Finally, Amin and bin Razduq convert the interrogative structure of the
question to a positive declarative statement. Pragmatically, this has its negative
impact on the role of the speaker. As mentioned previously, glorification implies

that the speaker does not have a real interest in the hearers answer. As he knows
the answer, the speaker is not dependent on the hearer to obtain the information.
Rather, he seeks to display power and authority through a rhetorical question as a
mean for increasing the glory and persuasiveness of the message (IIie, 1994;
Frank, 1990; Badarneh, 2003). In other words, Amin and bin Razduqs statement
reduces the Prophets powerful style as he is considered in this situation a
constitutive part of the communicative process and his assumptions affect the
hearers view of the argument (Badarneh, 2003, p.240).
4.12.4 Evaluation
that Al-Maihbs translation has the highest percentage (84%) followed by that of
Khan and Amin and bin Razduq with the percentage of (81%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
30
29
29
Percentage
84%
81%
81%
percentage in one level. Al-Maihb scores similar percentages to that of Amin and
bin Razduq in the semantic, pragmatic, and aesthetic levels. Khan scores the
highest percentage in the pragmatic and the aesthetic levels.
question (12)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
67%
No. of points
Percentage
89%
89%
78%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
67%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
89%
No significant difference exists between the percentages of the three

translations. The respondents, as opposed to the researchers view, consider the
collocation observe fasting used by Khan and Amin and bin Razduq as a one that
does not deviate from the rhetorical function of the original question. Somehow,
they view the propositional content as being the same in all the three translations.
Similarly, to the respondents, Amin and bin Razduqs declarative statement has not
any effect on the Prophets role. This might be because the respondents focus more
on the meaning of the question and how it is conveyed rather than on the stylistic
effect and its effect on the achievement of functional equivalence. It would be thus
fair to consider Al-Maihbs and Khans translation as adequate while that of
Amin and bin Razduq as medium.
4.13 HADITH (13)
The
Arabic
Text
" :

: :- -
:
: : : : .
: . : ! : .
! : : : . :
: :
: . : : .
.(1992496").
1446. How would it be if they see My Fire?! (Al-Maihb ,1999, p.379).

AlMaihb
Amin & 1447. How would they act if they were to see My Fire? (Amin & bin
Razduq, 1999, Vol.2: p.1070).
bin
Razduq
1452. What if they were to see My Fire? (Khan ,1975, p.242).
Khan

Abu Hurariah relates that the Prophet (PBUH) said: Allah has angles who
travel constantly looking for remembrance gatherings. When they find one so
occupied, they sit down with them and cover one another with their wings so that
the space between them and the sky is filled. When the company disperses, the
angles get up and ascend to heaven. Allah, the Lord of honor and glory, asks them
(and He Himself knows best): Whence do you come? They answer: We come from
some of Thy servants in the earth who proclaim Thy Holiness and Greatness and
Unity and praise Thee and supplicate Thee. He inquires: What do they ask Me?
They answer: They ask of Thy Paradise. He inquires: Have they seen My Paradise?
They answer: No, Lord. Then, He inquires: What if they see My Paradise? They
say: They also seek Thy protection. He inquires: From what do they seek My
protection? They answer: From Thy Fire, Lord. He inquires: Have they seen My
Fire? They say: No. He inquires: How will it be if they see My Fire?! They add:
And they ask Thy forgiveness. Then, He says: I have forgiven them, and bestowed
upon them what they ask for and have rewarded them My protection with the thing
from which they seek protection. They say: Lord, there is among them one, So and
So, who is a great sinner. He only passed by and sat down among them. He says: I
have forgiven him also. They are a company whose associate shall not be
deprived.
This Hadith highlights the virtue of circles and gatherings of remembrance of
Allah where the Prophets Sunnah is fully observed (Al-Saboni, 2007; AlAsqalani, 2005; Al-Othaimeen, 2004, vol.2; Yusuf, 1999).
The style of this Hadith is that of a question-answer. Following the angles

answer, another question is directed to them that functions as a comment on their
answer. These questions are introduced by the logical connectors " "fa- and
" "waa. They, in fact, constitute a special feature of interrogation. As they are
enunciated by an Omniscient narrator (i.e., Allah) Who already knows the answer,
these questions are used to clearly indicate the virtue and nobility of the companies
who foregather for the remembrance of Allah (Al-Othaimeen, 2004, vol.2).
One of the questions asked by Allah to his angles is from what do His
servants in earth seek protection. When the angles answer from Thy Fire, Allah
threatens and frightens His servants by saying "" How will it be if
they see My Fire?!. Al-Asqalani (2005) and Al-Hilali (2004) comment by saying
that this question is meant to indicate that:
.(457 ." " )
Hell has more types of hateful things than what has been described (p.457).
Al-Bustani amd Muhammad (2006) add that the question""
How will it be if they see My Fire?! is used:
.(818." " )
To intimidate from Hell for what it has of dangers and types of grievous
punishments (p.818).
4.13.3 Analysis
Threat is a sub-category of commissives. It is treated as unwelcome promise

(Grant, 1949). One realization form of explicit threats is the one used in the abovementioned rhetorical question, conditional.
In Arabic, the interrogative pronoun
kayfa is unmarked. As other
rhetorical functions (see sections 4.4.3, 4.6.3, 4.11.3, and 4.12.3), kayfa does
not independently force a rhetorical reading on the question (Badarneh, 2003).
Rather, the rhetorical reading of the question derives from its propositional content
along with its situational context.
There are some deviations that occur in the translation of the question and
affect its rhetorical function. The verb after the conditional particle law is past,
but in Arabic conditionals, it means a future act that is being presented as already
taken place (Wright, 1964, vol.2; Ghazala, 2006). In this type of conditionals, no
act is contingent on the fulfillment of the other. Rather, the conditional sentence
conveys the speakers certainty about a thing which will occur. Allah is sure of the
feeling of fear when His servants see His Fire. Hence, Al-Maihb should use will
instead of would in the result clause. Similarly, Amin and bin Razduq should use
will instead of would in the result clause and see instead of were to see in the
if-clause. This is because when the simple present is used in the if-clause and will+
simple form is used in the result clause, the meaning is true in the future.
However, when the simple past is used in the if-clause and would+ simple form is
used in the result clause, the meaning is untrue in the future or imagined and not
real event (Azar, 1999; Wills, 1982; Ish-Shihri, 2007). Table (25) clarifies the
difference:
Table 25. Tenses and their meanings in conditional sentences

Situation
If-Clause
True in the future Simple present
Result Clause
Example
Will+simple
form
How will it be if
they see My
Fire?
Untrue in the
Simple past
Would+simple
How would it be
future
form
if they saw My
Fire?
Simply, the correct translation would be How will it be if they see My Fire?!
In fact, the question implicitly means that Allahs servants will surely be
scared if they see His Fire. As a result, they try their best to worship Allah so as to
protect themselves from His grievous torture. The translators, however, do not
indicate this meaning when they translate the question literally. They, by doing so,
treat the original question as a real one and reduce its emphatic and frightening
tone. A better translation that would indicate the feeling of threat as well as
certainty would be Then, how eager will they be for worshipping me if they are to
see My Fire?!
Related to the above-mentioned point is Al-Maihbs use of the exclamation

mark at the end of his question. This preservance of the exclamation mark reveals
the emphatic and strong emotion of threat and certainty felt in the original
rhetorical question. One of the uses of the exclamation mark in English is to mark
emphasis and assertion. Thus, it must be retained when the translators choose to
reflect the emotions of the question (Mousa, 1995; Ish-Shihri, 2007; Ghazala,
2006).
Aesthetically speaking, preserving the interrogative structure reflects one
major psychological effect of the rhetorical question: a powerful speech
component. The use of rhetorical interrogation displays Allahs power and
authority that is required to threaten and frighten. Consequently, this display of
power through the use of a rhetorical question reflects how the speaker is
preserved. Empirical research on language reveals that speakers exhibiting a
powerful style are perceived more positively (Gibbons, Busch, & Bradec, 1991).
The positive perception, in turn, results in stronger effects in terms of accepting
threats and changing attitudes.
Another significant advantage that is achieved by preserving the interrogative
structure of the original is indicating the importance and the great value of the
things being asked about. Allah already knows the answer to His question as the
Hadith says " " wahwa alaam. Yet, the question is used to:
2005 " " )

.(252.2004 240. 2004 457.
Indicate caring for the thing being asked about, its importance, and its great
value (Al-Asqalani, 2005, p. 457; Khin, Bagha, Mesto, Sharbiji, & Lutfi, 2004,
p.240; Ibn-Alaan, 2004, p.252).
4.13.4 Evaluation
that Khans translation has the highest percentage, followed by that of Amin and
bin Razduq. Al-Maihb comes last with the percentage of (78%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
28
32
33
Percentage
78%
89%
92%
percentage in one level. Amin and bin Razduq score similar percentages of that of
Khan in the semantic and the aesthetic levels. Al-Maihb comes last in three
levels.
question (13)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
78%
100%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
56%
78%
100%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
89%
89%
As the table above indicates, the respondents, as opposed to the researcher,

consider Amin and bin Razduqs translation perfect on the syntactic level. This is
because it is a literal translation which preserves the tenses of the original.
However, preserving the tenses results in an obvious misrepresentation of the
rhetorical function as discussed earlier. Based on these contradictory views, a fair
judgment would be considering Khans translation adequate while that of Amin
and bin Razduqs as well as Al-Maihbs as being medium.
4.14 HADITH (14)

The
Arabic
Text
: :
: " :
"
" :
" " "
: " " : ""
" " :
: : " !" :
" : :" "
"
.(5221992)
AlMaihb
Amin &
bin
Razduq
Khan
1521. Is there anything that throws people on their face in the fire but the
results of their tongues? (Al-Maihb ,1999, p. 402).
1522. People will be thrown on their faces into the Hell on account of their
tongues. (Amin & bin Razduq ,1999, Vol.2: p.1129).
1527. Will people not be thrown face down into hell only on account of the
harvest of the tongue? (Khan ,1975, p.256).

Muadh relates: I requested the Holy Prophet (PBUH):O Messenger of
Allah! Please tell me the action which may help me to enter the heaven and keep
me away from Hell. He answered: You have asked about a matter of great
significance but it is easy for whom Allah makes it easy. Worship Allah and do not
associate anything with Him, perform the Salat, pay the Zakat, observe the fast
during Ramadan and perform the pilgrimage of the House. Then he added: Shall
I not tell you something about the passage to excellence and virtue? Fasting is a
shield, charity mitigates sins as water extinguishes fire. Similarly, the midnight
prayer wipes out the sins. Then he recited: Who forsake their beds to cry unto
their Lord in fear and hope and spend of what We have bestowed on them. No soul
knoweth what is kept hid for them of joy, as a reward for what they used to do
(32:16-17). Then he added: May I not tell you something about the roots of the
religion and its pillars and of its peak? I said: Certainly O Messenger of Allah.
He said: the head of the faith is Islam, its support is Salat, and its peak is Jihaad.
Then he asked: May I not tell you something about a thing which is the controller
of all of this? I said: Certainly O Messenger of Allah. Upon this he took hold of
his tongue and said: keep this under control. I submitted: O Messenger of Allah!
Will we be called to account for what we say? He answered: May you be lost to
your mother! Will people not be thrown into Hell on account of the harvest of
their tongues?
This Hadith describes the articles of Islam. Besides, it mentions the dangers
that occur as a result of the careless use of the tongue. The Prophet (PBUH)
emphasizes the fact that all good actions can go to waste if one does not guard his
speech. Therefore, one should guard his tongue against that which Allah has made
prohibited. Otherwise, one might be thrown into Hell on account of his tongue (AlAsqalani, 2005; Ibn-Alaan, 2004; Abu-Mousa, 2000).
This example is a clear manifestation of one category of Searles speech acts
(i.e., assertive). The point or purpose of this class is to commit the speaker (in
varying degrees) to somethings being the case, to the truth of the expressed
proposition (Al-Essa, 1990, p.18).
Rhetorical questions which indicate assertion simply express the fact that the
speaker is sure of what he is saying. Because the interrogative form makes a
forceful impression on the mind of the addressee, the speaker uses this form to
indicate the meaning of affirmation (Al-Malik, 1995).
The rhetorical question in this Hadith asserts that people will be thrown into
Hell on account of the harvest of their tongues. The Prophet (PBUH), by using the
interrogative form, does not want his companion to answer his question. Rather, he
wants him to bear in his mind the fact he mentions. In other words, the rhetorical
question is used to affirm the existence of the action under consideration.
4.14.3 Analysis
Syntactically speaking, the four translators differ on the syntactic form used
in their translations. Both Al-Maihb and Khan use an interrogative structure while
Amin and bin Razduq use the form of a positive statement. The use of the latter
form has caused some deviations in conveying the rhetorical function of the
original (i.e., assertion). This is because the interrogative particle hal when
translated in a form of a yes-no question, as in Al-Maihbs and Khans
translations, adds a stronger emphatic effect on the statement about which the
question is asked (Cantarino, 1974, vol.1: p.139). This effect is lost in Amin and
bin Razduqs translation by the use of the statement form. They, by using this
form, have turned the rhetorical question to merely a statement conveying a fact
rather than a rhetorical question with a strong emphatic effect. It would have been
better if Amin and bin Razduq insert words such as truly or certainly to convey
the assertive function of the original rhetorical question in their statement.
Yet, though both Al-Maihb and Khan use the form of a yes-no question,
Khans translation conveys more the function of affirmation than Al-Maihbs
translation does. This is due to the use of negation. Al-Malik (1995) claims that
not is a very strong device in indicating the potential rhetorical aspect of
affirmation and assertion. It is equivalent to certainly, and consequently its use
implies a reply in the positive. Similarly, Badarneh (2003) finds that the use of a
yes-no rhetorical question in the negative form conveys a positive judgment and
expresses the illocutionary force of a positive assertion, which is the case with the
rhetorical question in this Hadith.
The use of will helps pragmatically in reflecting adequately the kind of
relationship between the speaker and the hearer. As it indicates certainty, will
increases the authoritative tone of the speaker over the hearer. Asserting can be
expected from someone who is more experienced, more knowledgeable, and who
has authority over the addressee. This is applicable in this context since the speaker
is the Prophet (PBUH), who is supposed to illustrate to Muslims aspects of their

religion, and the addressee is one of his companions.
Apart from the syntactic and the pragmatic levels, and in relation to the
aesthetic level, the appropriate use of the interrogative form instead of other forms
of language (e.g., commands, statements, etc.) in Al-Maihbs and Khans
translations preserves the emphatic effect of the original. An assertion conveyed by
means of a rhetorical question is deemed more emphatic and salient than one
expressed directly through a declarative statement. This emphatic nature makes the
use of rhetorical questions more argumentatively appealing and attractive
(Badarneh, 2003, p.93).
4.14.4 Evaluation
In terms of the general scores of this rhetorical question, table (28) shows that
Al-Maihbs translation scores the highest percentage and Khan has the second
highest score. Amin and bin Razduq rank last.
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
30
23
27
Percentage
83%
63%
75%
Table (29) displays the scores of the four levels of the rhetorical question. AlMaihbs and Khans translations score similar percentages in terms of the
semantic and the pragmatic levels. Amin and bin Razduq rank last scoring the
lowest number of points in these two levels. As for the syntactic and the aesthetic
levels, Al-Maihb scores the highest number of points in both. Khan ranks second
in both as well. Amin and bin Razduq come last.
question (14)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
67%
78%
No. of points
Semantic
Percentage
100%
89%
100%
Pragmatic
No. of points
Percentage
67%
56%
67%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
45%
56%
Syntactic
Aesthetic
It can be stated that there is no statistically significant difference in the

translation of both Al-Maihb and Khan although the respondents consider Al-
Maihbs translation a slightly better in rendering the function of the original

rhetorical question. This might be due to the fact that Al-Maihbs translation has a
more direct and simple language than that of Khan. Yet, it is able, in spite of its
simplicity, to express the function of the original rhetorical question in an adequate
way. Al-Maihbs and Khans translations of the rhetorical question would be
considered adequate while that of Amin and bin Razduqs medium.
4.15 HADITH (15)
The
Arabic
Text

" " :
" !" :
.(5481992" ).
1578. What is this, O owner of this victual? (Al-Maihb ,1999, p.420).

AlMaihb
Amin & 1579. What is this? (Amin & bin Razduq ,1999, Vol.2: p.1181).
bin
Razduq
1584. What is this? (Khan ,1975, p.268).
Khan

Abu Hurairah relates that the Holy Prophet passed by a heap of corn, and on
thrusting his hand into it, his fingers felt some moisture whereupon he asked the
owner: What is this, O owner of this victual? He answered: Messenger of
Allah, it was wetted by rain. The Holy Prophet said: Why did you not let it remain
on top so that people could see it? He who deceives us is not one of us.
The general idea of this Hadith is the prohibition of cheating (Khin et al.,
2004). More specifically, the Hadith talks about the physical or the visible forms of
forgery and deceit (Yusuf, 1999). This means the concealment of some defect or
the addition of something to increase weight by unfair means (Al-Bustani &
Muhammad, 2006; Yusuf, 1999; Al-Othaimeen, 2004, vol.2). A person who cheats
is not following the way of Muslims (i.e., his conduct is not like that of Muslims).
When the Prophet (PBUH) felt by his fingers a wetness in the mans heap of
corn, he admonishes
(4)
him for that act of cheating. This is indicated by the
admontatory tone of the question. The mood of admonishment cancels the

information-seeking intent of the question, as does the lack of interest in providing
an answer to the question (Ibn-Alaan, 2004; Al-Hilali, 2004).
Admonitory rhetorical questions follow Searles expressive (1969). This is
the class of speech act whose illocutionary point is to convey the speakers
psychological state either toward himself or toward the hearer (Searle, 1969; Grant,
1949; Hickey, 1998; Al-Qinai, 2000). More specifically, admonitory rhetorical
questions in Arabic indicate the speakers disapproval of a particular behavior or
action by the hearer, and hence signal a kind of difference in values and beliefs
(Foda, 1953; Al-Syooti, 1987). In short, two major features are noticed about
rhetorical questions which convey the rhetorical function of admonishment:
(1) They function as a criticism of the hearer for an action, belief, or behavior
deemed blameworthy.
(2) They generally come out of a position of authority (Vanderveken, 1990,
p.179).
As other rhetorical functions in Arabic (see section 4.6.2), Larson (1984)
points out that the function of admonishment is also used in English. Why are you
always bothering grandfather? uttered by a mother to her child who causes
disturbance to his grandfather is a question meant to admonish the child and asks
him to stop bothering the grandfather (p.237).
4.15.3 Analysis
The three translations of the rhetorical question ""
What is this, O owner of this victual? differ in one point only. Yet, this point has
its significant effect on achieving functional equivalence (i.e., rendering affectively
the rhetorical function of admonishment). This has to do with the translation of the
explicit naming " " Sahib al-Taaam uttered by the Prophet (PBUH) at
the end of the rhetorical question.
Al-Maihb is the only one who provides an equivalent to the phrase "
" Sahib al-Taaam as owner of this victual. By doing so, his translation
conveys the admonitory tone towards the owner with which the utterance is
concerned. Ibn-Alaan (2004) emphasizes the importance of this phrase in
reinforcing the function of admonishment. Mentioning the thing in which the man
has cheated strengths the firm, disapproving, and warning tone. By the same token,
Al-Ammar (2003) comments by saying that by the utterance of the phrase "
" Sahib al-Taaam:
.(386." " )
More emphasis is placed on admonishment, and this consequently reflects a
strong tone of criticism towards the one to whom the blame is directed (p.386).
Put simply, Amin and bin Razduq as well as Khan have to translate this
phrase if they are to render and convey effectively the reproving essence felt in the
SLs question.
4.15.4 Evaluation
and Amin and bin Razduq with the percentage of (75%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
31
27
27
Percentage
87%
75%
75%
percentage in three levels. He scores similar percentages of that of Khan and Amin
and bin Razduq on the aesthetic level.
question (15)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
100%
78%
78%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
56%
56%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
78%
As discussed earlier, Al-Maihb scores the highest percentage due to his

translation of the phrase " " Sahib al-Taaam as opposed to Khan and
Amin and bin Razduq. Al-Maihbs translation is adequate while Khans and
Amin and bin Razduqs translations are medium.
The important conclusion that this example leads to is that dropping one part
of a sentence or a word has its negative effect on rendering adequately the SLs
rhetorical function to the TT. The admonitory tone of the phrase ""
Sahib al-Taaam is totally lost in Khans and Amin and bin Razduqs
translations. This, in turn, misrepresents the original function due to ignoring one
of the important indicators of the rhetorical function of admonishment. This
finding recalls the one related to the positive effect of adding a word or a phrase in
the translated rhetorical question (see sections 4.2.3; 4.4.3; 4.6.3; 4.10.3; 3.13.3;
4.17.3).
4.16 HADITH (16)
The
Arabic
Text

" " :
" !" :
.(5481992" ).
AlMaihb
Amin &
bin
Razduq
Khan
1578. Why did not you place it (the wet part) over the food stuff so that
people take notice of it! (Al-Maihb ,1999, p.420).
1579. Why did you not place this (the drenched part of the heap) over the
corn so that people might see it? (Amin & bin Razduq ,1999, Vol.2:
p.1181).
1584. Why did you not let it remain on top so that people could see it?
(Khan ,1975, p.268).
Abu Hurairah relates that the Holy Prophet passed by a heap of corn and on
thrusting his hand into it, his fingers felt some moisture whereupon he asked the
owner: What is this, O owner of this victual? He answered: Messenger of Allah,
it was wetted by rain. The Holy Prophet said: Why did you not let it remain on
top so that people could see it? He who deceives us is not one of us.

After the Prophet (PBUH) admonishes the man for the wetness he felt in the
heap of the corn (see section 4.15.2), he guides and advices the man to what a
trader should do in such cases. Defects in goods should be apparent to customers.
A trader who does not do so is actually cheating and this means that he is not
following the way of Muslims (Al-Othaimeen, 2004, vol.2; Al-Saboni, 2007).
Though the utterance "! " Why did you not let it
remain on top so that people could see it? is interrogative in form, it is not asked
to gain information. Rather, the Prophet (PBUH) is giving his order (5) to the owner
of the heap of the corn to let the wet part remains on top so that people could see
it. The Prophets reply expresses the consequences of not following the advice
given to the man in the rhetorical question (i.e., not being a Muslim he who
cheats).
The Prophets question is an order by a person of authority for what the man
must do (a command). According to Searles (1969) types of speech acts, the
question follows the class of directives. These are attempts by the speaker to get
the hearer to do something. When it comes to Tripps six types of directives
(1976), the Prophets question is classified as an embedded imperative as the order
is not stated explicitly in a declarative statement form.
The rules of orders are the following:
Type of illocutionary act: Command.
Propositional content: Future act A of H (Hearer).
Preparatory:
1. H is able to do A. S (Speaker) believes H is able to do A.
2. It is not obvious to both H and S that H will do A in the normal
course of events of his own accord.
Sincerity: S wants H to do A.
Essential: Counts as an attempts to get H to do A.
Comment: Orders and commands have the preparatory that S must be in a
position of authority over H. The authority relationship infects the essential
condition because the utterance counts as an attempt to get H to do A in virtue of
the authority of S over H. (Searle, 1969, p.66).
4.16.3 Analysis
Four points affect the rendering of the rhetorical function of order into the
translated rhetorical questions. These are the following:
1. The negative form did not used by the four translators signals the function
of order expressed in the original rhetorical question. Asad (1993) mentions that
the positive interrogative form in English cannot convey the sense of order. Only
the negative form can.
2. Preserving the interrogative form by the four translators conveys accurately
the sense of politeness felt in the original rhetorical question. The indirect question
form "! " Why did you not let it remain on top so that
people could see it? is a polite way of expressing an order. The interrogative order
is more polite in both Arabic and English than the straightforward request used in
an imperative form (Al-Essa, 1990; Yule, 2008) (See section 4.11.3). Simply put,
persevering the interrogative form in the three translations works in conformity
with Lakoffs (1973) politeness maxims do not impose.
3. Pragmatically speaking, the use of the more formal did not than the less
formal contradicted form did nt in all the three translations serves the strong
didactic authoritative tone of the speaker (the Prophet (PBUH) over the hearer (the
owner of the heap of corn). This, in turn, helps in indicating the illocutionary force
of the original since orders require an authoritative tone and a superior speaker.
4. No difference is felt between Al-Maihbs exclamation mark and Amin

and bin Razduqs as well as Khans question mark. This is because an exclamation
mark is used in English as a mark of a command or a request. Similarly, the
question mark is used in English to indicate a rhetorical question (Newmark,
1981).
4.16.4 Evaluation
and Amin and bin Razduq.
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
32
31
31
Percentage
89%
87%
87%
Specifically speaking, table (33) reveals that all translators score similar
percentages in three levels. Al-Maihb scores the highest percentage on the
syntactic level.
question (16)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
89%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
100%
100%
100%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
78%
No. of points
Percentage
78%
78%
78%

differences in the accuracy of the three translations. Hence, it would be fair to
consider all the three translations as being adequate.
4.17 HADITH (17)
The
Arabic
" :
Text
": .
" "
: "

.(1992626 ")
AlMaihb
Amin &
bin
Razduq
Khan
1850. How can his supplication be responded to? (Al-Maihb ,1999,

p.487).
1851. How can then his supplication be accepted? (Amin & bin Razduq
,1999, Vol.2: p.1368).
1857. How would the supplication of such a one find acceptance? (Khan
,1975, p.312).

Abu Hurairah relates that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) said: O people, Allah is
Pure and only accepts that which is pure. Allah has commanded the believers in the
same terms in which He commanded His Messengers. Allah has said: O ye
Messengers, eat of the things that are pure and act righteously (23.52) and has said:
Eat of the good things we have provided for you (7.161). Then, he mentioned the
case of a man who sets out on a long journey. His hair becomes ruffled and his
face is covered with dust, and he raises his hands towards heaven and supplicates:
O My Lord. O My Lord! While his food is unlawful and his drink is unlawful and
his sustenance is unlawful. How then could his supplication be answered?
This Hadith calls for lawful earning as it is an essential requirement for
answering the supplication (Yusuf, 1999). Unlawful earning is a barrier to the
answering of the prayers (Al-Bustani & Muhammad, 2006).
The rhetorical question which occurs at the end of the Hadith "
" How then could his supplication be answered? indicates improbability (6). It
means:
... "
.(402. 2003 " )
Considering something impossible to happen. This occurs when the speaker
doubts that what he wishes for will happen. He does not expect it to happen or
never waits for it (Al-Ammar, 2003, p.402).
Ibn-Alaan (2004) adds that " "annaa in this context means:
.(4/676." " )
Kayfa or min aynaa. The question indicates improbability (p.676/4).
The Prophet (PBUH) expresses his strong doubt in the truth or validity of the
answering of the supplication of a man whose food, drink, and sustenance are
unlawful. He, one way or another, affirms that the supplication of such one will
not be answered.
4.17.3 Analysis
As mentioned earlier, rhetorical questions introduced by
" "annaa
express the questioners incredulity regarding any possibility of the truth of a state
of affairs (Badarneh, 2003). They, thus, combine two illocutionary forces: (1)
how; and (2) impossible.
No significant differences are noticed between the three translations of the

rhetorical question. Yet, some general remarks should be made:
1. In relation to the modals used, Al-Maihbs as well as Amin and bin
Razduqs can does not differ from Khans would. These two modals are
interchangeable as they have the same meaning of may (Ghazala, 2006). They
usually express ability, possibility, and/or permission (Azar, 1999).
2. The conjunctive particle " "fa- prefixed to the interrogative particle
annaa is used to indicate causality: the supplication of this man will not be
answered because of his unlawful earnings. Amin and bin Razduq are the only
translators who preserve this coordination in their translation as then. This serves
the function of indicating improbability as then implies a sense of causality:
though the man has ruffled hair and his face is covered with dust (he is really in
need of his supplication to be answered), his prayers will not be answered because
his food, drink, and sustenance are unlawful. In this regard, Ibn-Alaan (2004)
mentions:
. " ):(-")
.(4/676
(Ruffled and covered with dust): entails that the supplication of such a man
is worth enough to be answered. Yet, it will not be accepted due to his unlawful
earnings (p.676/4).
Al-Maihb and Khan, on the other hand, neglect translating the conjunctive
particle " "fa-; thus they overlook the causal relationship between unlawful
earnings and answering prayers, which is the main theme of the Hadith. In other
words, ignoring the translation of the conjunctive particle lessens the emphasis
given to the content of the sentence preceding the rhetorical question.
Based on the analysis presented above, the researcher suggests another
translation of the question How then could his supplication be
answered?. This would be by converting the interrogative form of the question
into a statement as His supplication then surely can not be answered. Such a
translation serves the function of indicating improbability in three ways: (1) the
negative form of can conveys the sense of impossibility stronger than its positive
form; (2) surely reflects the sense of assertion felt in the original (certainly, the
supplication of this man will not be answered); finally, (3) this direct declarative
form places the emphasis more clearly on the emotions of impossibility than the
indirect question form.
4.17.4 Evaluation
that Amin and bin Razduqs translation has the highest percentage followed by
that of Al-Maihb. Khan comes last with the percentage of (84%).
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
32
33
30
Percentage
89%
92%
84%
Specifically speaking, table (35) reveals that all translators score the same
percentage in two levels. Al-Maihb scores similar percentage of that of Amin and
bin Razduq on the semantic level. Khan comes last on the semantic and the
pragmatic levels.
question (17)
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
Percentage
100%
100%
100%
No. of points
Percentage
100%
100%
89%
No. of points
Percentage
67%
78%
56%
No. of points
Percentage
89%
89%
89%
In fact, no great deviations occur in the translations that seriously affect the
rendering of the function of improbability. Amin and bin Razduqs translation
would be considered adequate while that of Khan and Al-Maihb as medium.
Notes
1. This rhetorical question is the only one that was found in Hadith in general (AlAmmar, 2003), and An-Nawawi's Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous)
(1992) in particular, that expresses the rhetorical function of lamentation.
2. The possible occasions where the function of denunciation and denial occur are:
if one claimed an ability of doing an action beyond his ability, or intends doing
what should not be done, or accepts the existence of something that has nothing
similar (Foda, 1953, 193-4). Arab rhetoricians divide the interrogative with
denial/denunciation meaning into two sub-types: denunciation ( ) and
denial (( ) Al-Subki, 2001):
(a) Denunciation: this means that the speaker wants to reproach and rebuke the
addressee for an action. For example, the speaker is disaffirming the verb serving
in the following verse: "( " 95 :)
Do you serve what you hew? (Arberry, 1964, p.459).
(b) Denial: this means that the speaker wants to disclaim the existence of the
action and accuses the addressee of lying. The action did not take place in the past,
nor in the present or future. For example, in the verse:
(40: " " )What, has your Lord favored
you with sons and taken to Himself from the angles females? (Arberry, 1964,
p.278). The speaker is denying the existence of the action in the past (i.e., choosing
the angles to be His daughters). God is disaffirming the claim of the addressees.
Al-Subki (2001) adds with regard to the difference between denial and
denunciation the following:
"
.(299. " )
The criterion of this type is that denunciation requires that the thing which follows
the interrogative particle has already happened, but is a shameful deed. However,
the criterion of denial is that the thing which follows the interrogative particle has
not happened, and the speaker wants to show that it is a lie. (p. 299).
In this thesis, the discussion is restricted to denunciation rhetorical questions and
does not cover denial. This is because the latter does not occur in An-Nawawi's
Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous) (1992), to which the corpus of the

study is limited (see section 3.1). Al-Ammar (2003) also notices the same finding
as he says:
"
.(342. " )
I did not find in the interrogative structures that occur in the two Sahihs (Bukhari
and Muslim) the meaning of denial. All those were found have the meaning of`
denunciation(p.342).
The reason behind the absence of the meaning of denial, from the researchers
point of view, might be due to the fact that the Prophets (PBUH) speeches to his
companions express more his anger or refusal of an action that has occurred (i.e.,
denunciation). His companions do not commit serious prohibited actions that urged
the Prophet (PBUH) to use the meaning of denial. Most commonly, denial occurs
in Quran in situations which disclaim the allegations of the disbelievers. In Riyadus-Saliheen, denunciation occurs in the following Hadiths: 43,66,398,656,1763.
3. One of the five principal duties of Muslims. It is the 9th month of the Muslims
year when they abstain from food, drinks and sexual intercourse between dawn and
sunset (Saleh, 2002; Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, 2005).
4. Admonish implies giving advice or warn in order to rectify or avoid something

(i.e., suggests gentle criticism). Reproach usually refers to regretful or unhappy
criticism arising from a sense of disappointment (i.e., suggests strong criticism)
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 2000).
5. Orders differ from requests in the sense that the latter are made by an inferior
while orders are made by a superior (Hamblin, 1987). Yet, both are made or
issued in the putative interest of the utterer independently of the interest of the
addressee (p.9).
6. This differs from (indicating impatience). The latter means that the thing
will surely occur but the speaker shows restlessness because of the long time of
waiting (see section 4.6.2). ( indicating improbability), on the other hand,
means that it is impossible for the thing to happen whether in the past, present, or
future (see section 4.16.2)
CHAPTER FIVE
Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations
5.1 Summary
The overall objective of this study was to investigate the possibility of
achieving functional equivalence when translating rhetorical questions in Hadith
from Arabic into English. More specifically, the study attempted to find out
whether, how, and to what extent functional equivalence could be achieved in the
translation of Hadiths rhetorical questions from Arabic into English. Accordingly,
the research was carried out with a specific application to three translations of AnNawawi's Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous) (1992); namely S. AlMaihbs Riyad-us-Salihin (1999), M.Amin and Al-Arabi bin Razduqs Riyd-usSaliheen (1999), and M.Khans Gardens of the Righteous (1975).
After listing all interrogative utterances that occurred in An-Nawawi's Riyadus-Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous)(1992) and determining their intended
functions, seventeen rhetorical questions out of 73 in fifteen Hadiths were selected,
representing seventeen rhetorical functions (see section 3.1). The procedures
followed for analysis were of a qualitative and a quantitative nature. They were
qualitative in the sense that each rhetorical question was analyzed separately
according to Mousas four levels of rhetorical questions (1995): the syntactic, the
semantic, the pragmatic, and the aesthetic (see section 3.2.1). A comparison was
made between the three translations in order to determine the success or failure of
the translators to convey the functions of Arabic rhetorical questions into English.
The discussion also pointed out linguistic signals and strategies used to achieve
functional equivalence in the translation of the rhetorical questions under
investigation.
Quantitatively speaking, adequacy of translating the rhetorical questions was
measured by administering a questionnaire to three bilingual scholars experienced
in the two languages involved (i.e., Arabic and English). This questionnaire called
for evaluating the three translations at hand through assigning a value to each
translation on a 3-points scale. The choices made were then statistically analyzed
and the percentage of adequacy was determined. On the basis of the researchers
analysis and the percentages calculated, the adequacy of each translation (i.e., its
success in maintaining functional equivalence) was judged either as adequate,
medium, or inadequate.
The aim of this chapter is to provide answers to the research questions posed
in chapter one (see section 1.4), making use of the analysis made in chapter four.
In addition, the chapter discusses the major findings of the research, puts forward
some recommendations, and finally suggests areas for further research.
5.2 Results
Several results were drawn from the analysis of the seventeen rhetorical
questions discussed in chapter four. These are presented in relation to the research
questions outlined in chapter one (see section 1.4):
4. Is it possible for translators of Hadith to achieve complete functional
equivalence when translating rhetorical questions in Hadith from
Arabic into English?
The analysis of the seventeen rhetorical questions indicated that total
correspondence of the translated rhetorical questions to the functions of the
original is impossible. All of the translated rhetorical questions displayed, in
varying degrees, certain deviations in relation to the four levels of rhetorical
questions, which have a considerable impact on the creation of functional
equivalence (i.e., syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and aesthetic). This means that all
of the four translators were not able to achieve complete functional equivalence in
their translations of Hadiths rhetorical questions. Interestingly enough, this finding
supports the views of Al-Qinai (2000) and Hatim and Mason (1990) that complete
functional equivalence in translation is not an achievable goal. More specifically, it
corroborates Mousas observation (1995) that the source rhetorical question can
not completely correspond to the target rhetorical question syntactically,
semantically, pragmatically, and aesthetically. . . the translator can not transfer
their components into the target rhetorical question to the full (p.44).
The highest percentage gained in the translations of the rhetorical questions

analyzed was (95%) by Al-Maihb in his translation of the rhetorical question with
the function of denunciation (see section 4.10.4). The degree of achieving
functional equivalence for all of the other translated rhetorical questions was either
adequate, medium, or inadequate but never totally equivalent to the original (i.e.,
none of the translators scored 100% in his translation of any). This entails that all
of the four translators were only capable of achieving partial rather than complete
functional equivalence in their translations of Hadiths rhetorical questions from
Arabic into English. Thus, as Hornby (1974) and Hatim and Mason (1990) claim,
the term adequate (the closest possible meaning) is much better to be used than
the term equivalent (total functional correspondence) when evaluating the
achievement of functional equivalence in the translation of rhetorical questions in
Hadith from Arabic into English.
Two reasons, besides those related to deviations on the syntactic, semantic,
pragmatic, and aesthetic levels (discussed in the answer of the second research
question), were identified as the ones which prevented the achievement of
complete functional equivalence in the translation of rhetorical questions in Hadith
from Arabic into English. First, the translated rhetorical questions were written and
never spoken which is in its self a big loss. When the Prophets (PBUH) rhetorical
questions were uttered, there were certain contextual factors and situational clues
that helped in indicating the rhetorical function of the original question. Such
extra-linguistic factors can never be exactly reproduced in translation. For
example, though the translated rhetorical questions with the functions of indicating
impatience (section 4.6), exhortation (section 4.11), glorification (section 4.12),
and threatening and frightening (section 4.13) corresponded , to a certain extent,
linguistically to the original, their functions will not be recognized and figured out
by any reader until their contexts of occurrence are identified. Put simply, the
existence of some context-generated functions hindered the achievement of total
functional equivalence. Their most prominent functions were identified from their
contexts, which, as mentioned earlier, can not be exactly reproduced in translation.
Consequently, the finding that context is a vital criterion to be identified when
translating the Prophets (PBUH) rhetorical questions is in consonance with
Mittwochs (1978), Sadocks (1974), Emerys (2004), Bakers (1992), Austins
(1962), Houses (1977), Widdowsons (1979), Larsons (1974), Ferraras (1980),
and Abdel-Hafizs (2003) views that a translators attention should be paid to the
clues provided by the context and the extra-linguistic knowledge in order to infer
accurately and render effectively the illocutionary force of any particular utterance.
The second reason identified as the one which prevented the achievement of
complete functional equivalence in the translation of the prophetic rhetorical
questions was the explanation provided for unfamiliar concepts of the source
culture; namely, Islamic words and expressions existing in the ST. In certain cases
(see sections 4.6 and 4.9), the translators expected that the readers of the translated
rhetorical questions, especially non-Muslims and non-native speakers of Arabic,
will not be able to comprehend the function of the rhetorical question and the
intention of the producer due to their lack of knowledge of the Islamic terms
mentioned. Such cultural gaps, which increase in cases of divergent cultures as
Arabic and English, led the translators to insert transliteration and bracketed words
in their translations. This, in turn, reduced the illocutionary force of the rhetorical
questions due to producing rather lengthy questions.
Based on these findings, an adequate translation of a rhetorical question in
Hadith from a functionalist perspective is the closest one in transmitting the
intended massage with success. It is the one which aims to elicit somewhat a
response from its readers partially equivalent to that of the STs receptors. To do
so, some linguistic signals and strategies were identified as the ones which help in
conveying the functions of Hadiths rhetorical questions when translated from
Arabic into English. These are discussed in the following research question.
5. What are the linguistic signals and strategies used by translators to
convey the functions of rhetorical questions in Hadith when translating
them into English?
It was noticed from the analysis of the data that equivalence of function was
only achieved when equivalence at the four levels of rhetorical questions was
maintained (i.e., syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and aesthetic). That is, whenever
there was a loss or inadequacy at the semantic level, for instance, a loss was
definitely expected at the functional level.
As stated in the above-mentioned research question, total correspondence of
the translated rhetorical question to the function of the original is impossible. Yet,
the analysis of the data indicated some linguistic signals and strategies used by the
translators which either facilitated or hindered the achievement of functional
equivalence. The researcher entitled these as techniques of enabling or
preventing. These are the techniques which either enabled or prevented the
achievement of functional equivalence in the translation of rhetorical questions in
Hadith from Arabic into English. They are classified into two sub-categories: (1)
signals; and (2) strategies. The signals include two types: linguistic and extralinguistic. The strategies, on the other hand, are of two types: transference and
conversion. Diagrammatically, the techniques of enabling or preventing can be
represented as follo
Figure 1. Techniques used to facilitate or hinder the achievement of functional

equivalence in the translation of rhetorical questions
Techniques of Enabling or Preventing

Signals
Linguistic
Textinternal
1. Additions
Lexicalitems
Punctuationmarks
Brackets
2. Subtractions
Originallexical
items
Conjunctions
3. Alterations
Verbtenses
Wordorder
deviations
Pronouns
4. Maintenance
Positionofthe
rhetoricalquestion
Negativeform
5. Others
Useofthe
appropriatemodal
Formallongform
of the negative
Extralinguistic
context
Textexternal
footnotes
Strategies
Strategyof
transference
Strategyof
conversion
A description of each of these signals and strategies is to follow:
Linguistic signals
1. Text-internal
These include five signals that occurred within the translated text. They
are: additions, subtractions, alterations, maintenance, and others.
Additions
This has to do with the addition of certain linguistic elements which do not
occur in the original rhetorical questions. This is done in an attempt to make the
implicit rhetorical functions linguistically explicit in the translated questions.
The elements added in the data analyzed were either: lexical items, punctuation
marks, or brackets.
Lexical items
This means the addition of a lexical element that does not have a
counterpart in the original rhetorical question. As a result, the illocutionary
force of the question becomes either clearer, changed, or distorted. The addition
of also and o, for example, in Amin and bin Razduqs and Al-Maihbs
translations helped in indicating the illocutionary force of the original rhetorical
questions (see sections 4.2.3 and 4.4.3). In other situations, however, the
addition of certain lexical items was misleading as they reduced the effect of the
original words in indicating the functions of the original rhetorical questions. A
clear example of that case is Khans addition of the word now which caused
confusion regarding the tense intended (see section 4.1.3). Addition also
included performative verbs whose meanings were the essence of the illocution
(i.e., the verb effectively spelled out the illocutionary force). In some examples
(see section 4.6.3), the implicit rhetorical function of the original question was
not indicated by translating the lexical items of the original. It was suggested
that with such context-generated functions, the implicit illocutionary force can
be made explicit by adding performative verbs or adverbs as cried, assert,
promise, command or deny to denote the rhetorical function.
Punctuation marks
It was found out that the addition of some punctuation marks which did
not occur in the original rhetorical questions was another mean for reflecting
the rhetorical functions of the questions in translation (see sections 4.4.3, 4.8.3,
and 4.13.3). This finding is in consonance with Mousas (1995), Ish-shihris
(2007), and Ghazalas (2006) views that punctuation marks must be retained
when a translator chooses to reflect the emotions of a question. It was mostly
Al-Maihb who resorted to that technique in his translation. On the other hand,
the wrong addition of certain punctuation marks changed the rhetorical function
of the original question (see section 4.2.3). It was also found out that
punctuation marks were means of indicating the multi-functions of a rhetorical
question. When the rhetorical question fulfilled more than one communicative
function, punctuation marks were the ones which conveyed the accompanying
functions (see section 4.8.3).
Brackets
In all of the cases examined, the use of brackets in the translation of
rhetorical questions showed a negative effect on reflecting the rhetorical
function of the original question. Mostly, brackets were used within the body of
the text to explain the meaning of an Islamic term or to clarify an embedded
element (see sections 4.6.3 and 4.9.3). However, the use of brackets, which
were used by Amin and bin Razduq in all the examples analyzed, had resulted
in an inaccurate transmission of the essence of the original illocutionary force
due to producing rather lengthy questions which might distract the reader. It
was suggested that in such cases, a translator should resort to footnotes to
clarify more the meaning of the Islamic terms or to indicate the embedded
elements.
Subtractions
This has to do with the omission of certain linguistic elements which
already existed in the original rhetorical question. Generally speaking, it was
found that subtracting an element in translation had a negative effect on

reflecting the rhetorical function of the original question and, consequently,
achieving functional equivalence. The elements omitted in the data analyzed
were original lexical items and conjunctions.
Original lexical items
As opposed to the addition of lexical items, subtracting certain lexical items
that occurred in the original rhetorical question resulted in a negative effect on
rendering adequately the SLs rhetorical function in the TT. The admonitory tone
of the phrase " " Sahib al-Taaam, which was an important indicator of
the rhetorical function of admonishment, was totally lost in Khans and Amin and
bin Razduqs translation of the rhetorical question "" What is
this, O owner of this victual?(see section 4.15.3). Similarly, avoiding omission in
the three translations of example ten helped in reflecting the rhetorical function of
denunciation clearly and effectively (see section 4.10.3).
Conjunctions
In certain cases (see sections 4.1.3 and 4.17.3), the conjunctive particle
prefixed to the interrogative particle was omitted in translation. Such omission
resulted in reducing the emphasis given to the content of the sentence preceding
the rhetorical question. In addition, it reduced the logical relationship which is the
result of a particular statement or situation. The maintenance of this relationship

was necessary as it was a fundamental element in indicating the rhetorical function
of the original question in translation. Al-Maihbs and Khans omission of the
conjunctive particle " "fa- in example one resulted in a misrepresentation of the
function of challenge as the causality relationship,which usually accompanies
challenge, was lost (see section 4.1.3).
Alterations
This means realizing a linguistic element used in the original rhetorical
question by using a different form in the translation. In most of the cases analyzed,
such changes resulted in a distortion in the presentation of the rhetorical function
of the original question. Alterations can be treated under the following classes: (1)
verb tenses; (2) word order deviations; and (3) pronouns.
Verb tenses
The use of the simple past in the if-clause and would+ the simple form in the
result clause by Al-Maihb and Amin and bin Razduq instead of the simple present
in the if-clause and will+ the simple form in the result clause changed the meaning
conveyed in the original rhetorical question. The original conditional sentence
conveyed the speakers certainty about the thing which will occur, which is a
feeling necessary to convey along with the rhetorical function of threatening and
frightening uttered by an Omniscient narrator (i.e., Allah). The analysis showed

that maintaining the same tense was necessary in order to convey the same
rhetorical function of the original and,in turn, achieve functional equivalence (see
section 4.13.3). In other cases, however, the changes made in the tenses of the
original enabled the translators to maintain structural equivalence. The future tense
used by all of the four translators instead of the present tense added the meaning of
threat which usually accompanies challenge (see section 4.1.3). Thus, it is safe to
state that with some rhetorical functions, using the same tense of the original in the
translation will result in reflecting the rhetorical function of the original accurately
and hence achieving functional equivalence (see section 4.2.3).
Word order deviations

Word order deviations affected the rendering of the rhetorical function of the
original negatively. The original words were ordered according to their
importance. Shifts of order meant changing the degree of importance given to these
elements. A clear example of such a case is Amin and bin Razduqs changing of
the order of the good deeds mentioned in the original (i.e., Saum and Salat) and the
negative effect resulted in conveying the rhetorical function of glorification (see
section 4.12.3).
Pronouns
Similar to the effect resulting from shifts of verb tenses and word order,
replacing the pronouns of the original with other linguistic elements in the
translation was a means of distorting the presentation of the rhetorical function of
the original question. Making what is covert in the original (due to the use of
pronouns) overt in the translation meant a loss in the chance given to the hearer to
draw conclusions. This also reduced the hearers involvement and his participation
in admitting the truth of a state of affairs. No doubt, the data analyzed indicated
that such involvement-inducing effect was an important felicity condition for a
speech act to achieve its intended illocutionary effect (see section 4.3.3).
Maintenance
This refers to the perseverance of the linguistic form used in the original
question. With this maintenance, translators were able, in certain cases, to convey
accurately the rhetorical function of the original in their translations. Two
linguistic elements were maintained in the data analyzed: (1) position of the
rhetorical question; and (2) the negative form.
Position of the rhetorical question
Preserving the opening position of the rhetorical question had its positive
effect on reflecting the attention-arousing effect in the translation. This is because
such a position puts the hearer in a particular frame of mind and prepares him to
what is coming. The data showed that this inherent functional ability of rhetorical
questions should be maintained in the translation if a translator chooses to indicate
the rhetorical function of inducing fascination and arousing interest (see section
4.5.3).
Negative form
Preserving the negative form used in the original question also had its impact
on the achievement of functional equivalence. It served the translators in three
ways: (1) it helped in indicating the meaning of a positive assertion in contexts
where the purpose of the negative was the opposite (i.e., the answer to the negative
question was affirmative) (see sections 4.2.3 and 4.14.3); (2) similarly, it served
the function of persuasion as it strengthened the tone of the question and its
indirect act of asking the addressees to support the speakers argument (see section
4.3.3); (3) finally, the negative form helped psychologically the addressee to hear
happy news by seeking to elicit his agreement with the proposition implicitly. This,
in turn, served the illocutionary force of giving glade tidings as example seven
showed (see section 4.7.3).
Others
In addition to what is mentioned above, other text-internal linguistic signals
were used in ways that either facilitated or hindered the achievement of functional
equivalence in the translation. These were: the use of the appropriate modals, the
use of the formal long form of the negative, and collocations.
Use of appropriate modals
When appropriate modals were used, equivalence at the syntactic and the
pragmatic levels were achieved. The modal will , for instance, was suitable in
contexts which tended to indicate promising future action to happen (see sections
4.6.3 and 4.7.3) as opposed to would, can, and shall which were used to
convey an impression of probability or possibility of the action to happen (see
sections 4.4.3 and 4.17.3). Pragmatically, the use of the appropriate modals had
their effects in reflecting adequately the kind of relationship between the speaker
and the hearer. Will was used in cases where the translators aimed at increasing
the authoritative tone of the speaker over the hearer. This is because will
indicated certainty which was a prerequisite for the rhetorical function of assertion
(see section 4.14.3).
Use of the long form of the negative
The use of the more formal long form of the negative, as opposed to the less
formal contracted form, added an emphatic sense to the translation. It strengthened
the didactic authoritative tone of the speaker over the hearer which was required
with rhetorical functions as assertion, giving glade tidings, and orders (see sections
4.2.3, 4.7.3, and 4.16.3).
Collocations
It was found in the data analyzed that the use of an inaccurate collocation
reduced the semantic feature of the original and narrowed the scope of meaning.
This, as a result, led to a deviation in an element of the meaning of the original
rhetorical question (see sections 4.12.3 and 4.17.3). In short, the use of the
appropriate collocation had its positive effect on the achievement of functional
equivalence.
2. Text-external
When the translation of a rhetorical question resulted in a meaningless
expression or a wrong interpretation of the rhetorical function of the original, the
necessary
adjustments
were
mostly
text-internal.
However,
there
were
circumstances in which a correct rendering of the rhetorical function was

persevered by required text-external adjustments in order to achieve the highest
possible levels of functional equivalence. The only text-external signal identified
was the footnote which was a means to reduce the chance for losses.
Footnotes
To achieve equivalence at the lexical level, the researcher suggested that if
there was a need to use both transliteration and translation with cultural-specific
terms, it was sufficient to give the transliteration in the body of the text.
Translation or other additional information, which might be generally useful in
understanding the historical and cultural background of the rhetorical question,
should be mentioned in a footnote. This is because mentioning both translation and
transliteration in the body of the text distracts the reader as well as reduces the
illocutionary force of the question due to producing rather lengthy questions (see
section 4.9.3).
Extra-linguistic signals
With certain rhetorical questions (see sections 4.4.3; 4.6.3; 4.11.3; 4.12.3; and
4.13.3), explicit linguistic clues were absent. Only the extra-linguistic signals (i.e.,
the circumstances of an utterance, the situational context or the norms of the
interaction (Bell, 1991, p.175) indicated that the interrogative utterance was a
rhetorical one. This means that these extra-linguistic signals are exceedingly
important in recognizing and conveying the illocutionary force of an utterance.
Such a finding recalls the views of House (1977), Widdowson (1979), Beekman
and Callow (1979), and Mittwoch (1978) that every text should be placed within
its situational dimensions which have to be correctly identified and taken into
account by the translator. In this way, the original rhetorical question can match the
target one in function.
Additionally, it was also found out that with context-generated functions (i.e.,
those which get their most prominent functions from their contexts), explicit hints
can be added to the context so that the TT reader can discern the rhetorical function
of the original rhetorical question. For example, adding certain performative verbs
or adverbs denoting attitude as assert, deny, cried, or ah makes the implicit
context-generated illocutionary forces explicit in translation. When such lexical
clues do not work, providing an authentic translation for the whole Hadith is the
only way to indicate the rhetorical function of the original question (see sections
4.6.3 and 4.11.3).
Strategies
It was clear from the data that the translators rendered, to a certain extent, the
rhetorical functions of the questions by using two strategies. These were: (1) the
strategy of transference and (2) the strategy of conversion. Such finding supports
Nidas view (1964) that a translator is not free to do whatever he wants to a
translated text so as to reflect its function. Rather, what he is allowed to do is
simply changing the manner in which the information is revealed. The two
strategies used were means that enabled translators to change the manner in which
the information is revealed. In this way, the rhetorical functions of the questions
were rather revealed, distorted or changed.
Strategy of transference
This means keeping the apparent interrogative form when translating Hadiths
rhetorical questions into English. In appearance, the translated rhetorical question
looked like a real one. Yet, it carried a rhetorical function due to certain contextual
elements and/or text-external and text-internal signals. The examples in which the
translators used the strategy of transference were 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,13,14,15,16,
and 17.
Strategy of conversion
This means transferring the rhetorical question into a statement with the intent
that its purpose is in accordance with the original one. This strategy was used in
two examples only: 9 and 12.
Obviously, the strategy of transference was more frequently used than that of
conversion (88.2% to 11.8%).
From the researchers point of view, the fear of distorting the rhetorical
essence of the original question, especially that the texts dealt with were sensitive
and religious (i.e., Hadith which is the second authoritative guide for Muslims),
was the main reason behind the translators nearly constant choice of the strategy
of transference. This fear was further compounded (with some examples analyzed)
by the absence of any additions, either within the text or in the footnotes.
The only drawback of the strategy of transference, however, was that it
neglected totally the rhetorical element felt in the original question. Consequently,
it made real and rhetorical questions look similar. Yet, this drawback can be
overcome by: (1) resorting to text-external linguistic signals mentioned earlier,
such as providing additional comments about the rhetorical question in a footnote.
The effectiveness of commenting was emphasized with context-generated
functions (see sections 4.4.3; 4.6.3; 4.11.3; and 4.13.3) with which text-internal
linguistic signals alone can not help in clarifying the rhetorical function. This
means that a translator should consider possible explanations that would help the
target reader draw the right inferences from Hadiths rhetorical questions; and (2)
using some of the text-internal linguistic signals listed earlier. By the use of such
signals, the purpose of the original question becomes clearer and the intended
meaning accessible (see sections 4.2.3; 4.4.3; 4.6.3; and 4.9.3).
On the other hand, the drawback of the strategy of conversion was that it
reduced the argumentative tone of the questions which were used for persuasive
purposes. Further, it reduced the emphatic effect of assertions conveyed by means
of rhetorical questions. It also lessened the feelings of arousing desire and
involvement-inducing, as the addresses will not keep thinking and wait for the
answer to come (i.e., the curiosity of the readers to hear what is coming is
lessened). Pragmatically, the strategy of conversion had a negative impact on the
role of the speaker in that it reduced the Prophets powerful style in situations
where his assumptions affected the hearers view of the argument (see section
4.12.3).
Generally speaking, the strategy of transference proved to be more suitable
than that of conversion in reflecting adequately the rhetorical functions of the
questions analyzed. This was due to its significant effect on the achievement of
functional equivalence, especially at the aesthetic level. Aesthetically speaking, the
major effects of the strategy of transference were two: (1) it served Lakoffs
Politeness Maxims (1973), as preserving the interrogative form of the original
question reflected politeness of the request and order (see sections 4.11.3 and
4.16.3). This is in consonance with Leechs (1983) finding that the indirect
illocutions tend to be more polite than positive declarative statements.
Additionally, (2) the strategy of transference served a major psychological effect of
rhetorical questions, a powerful speech component. Such power was required in
situations of threat and frightening to enable the speaker to be perceived more
positively (see section 4.13.3).
Last but not least, three major points were noticed regarding the linguistic
signals and strategies mentioned above. These were:
(1) All of the signals and strategies mentioned above proved to have an effect,
whether a positive or a negative one, on the achievement of functional
equivalence in the translation of rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic into

English.
(2) The use of a certain signal or a strategy differed in its effect with different
rhetorical functions. In other words, some linguistic signals had a positive effect
on the achievement of functional equivalence with some rhetorical functions
while the same signals had a negative effect on the achievement of functional
equivalence with other rhetorical functions. A clear example of that is the
linguistic signal of alteration of the verb tense. While the changes made to the
tense of the original were necessary to convey the rhetorical function of
challenge (see section 4.1.3), the changes of the original tenses reduced the
achievement of functional equivalence with the rhetorical function of
threatening and frightening (see section 4.13.3).
(3) Finally, the linguistic signals and strategies were identified after an analysis
which dealt exclusively with rhetorical questions in Hadith was done. This
means that such signals and strategies might not be equally applicable to all
types of texts.
6. Which of the four translators under investigation is the best in
achieving functional equivalence in his translation of rhetorical
questions in Hadith from Arabic into English?
When the translators accuracy in achieving functional equivalence in the

translation of Hadiths rhetorical questions from Arabic into English is presented
statistically, one can find that Al-Maihb scored the highest percentage (84%).
Khan scored (83%) and Amin and bin Razduq scored the lowest percentage (81%)
(see table 36 below).
Table 36. The overall scores of the three translations
Amin & bin
Al-Maihb
Khan
Razduq
No. of points out of 612
513
494
507
Percentage
84%
81%
83%
Using figures, the overall scores are presented as follows:

Figure2.Theoverallscoresofthethreetranslations
84.5
84
83.5
83
82.5
82
81.5
81
80.5
80
79.5
Al-Maihb
Amin & bin

Razduq
Khan
In other words, the results of the study showed that Al-Maihbs translation is
slightly better in achieving functional equivalence than those of the other
translators. Khan came next whereas Amin and bin Razduq came last.
Specifically speaking, the table below shows that Al-Maihb scored the
highest percentage in two levels: the syntactic and the semantic. Khan, on the other
hand, got the highest percentage in the pragmatic level. Amin and bin Razduqs
translation got the highest percentage in the aesthetic level (see table 37 below).
Table 37. The overall scores of the specific levels for the translation of the
rhetorical questions
Level
Points &
Al-Maihb
Percentages
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Amin & bin
Khan
Razduq
No. of points
146
134
130
Percentage
96%
88%
85%
No. of points
145
131
131
Percentage
95%
86%
86%
No. of points
105
112
120
Percentage
70%
74%
79%
No. of points
117
122
120
Percentage
77%
80%
79%
Figure 3 shows the scores of the specific levels of the rhetorical questions
analyzed.
Figure3.Theoverallscoresofthespecificlevelsforthetranslationofthe
rhetorical questions
120%
100%
Al-Maihb
80%
60%
Amin and bin

Razduq
40%
Khan
20%
Ae
st
he
tic
Pr
ag
m
at
ic
an
t ic
Se
m
Sy
nt
ac
tic
0%
The optimal translations (i.e., in terms of achieving the highest levels of

functional equivalence) of Al-Maihbs was achieved in his translation of the tenth
rhetorical question (95%) (see section 4.10.4). Amin and bin Razduqs optimal
translation was in their translation of the seventeenth rhetorical question (92%)
(see section 4.17.4). Finally, Khans optimal translation was in his translation of
the sixth, tenth, and thirteenth rhetorical questions (92%) (see sections 4.6.4;
4.10.4; and 4.13.4).
Generally, the percentages scored by the four translators indicated that all of
the three translations were rather close to the rhetorical functions of the original
questions. None of the translators achieved a total functional correspondence to
that of the original. Translators, in some cases, disregarded the functional value of
the original questions either due to their lack of knowledge or for the sake of ease.
Amin and bin Razduq provided a literal translation for the rhetorical questions.
They failed in many cases to grasp and convey the rhetorical purposes of the
questions. They were consistent in using brackets and transliteration which led to
lengthy questions and a reduction in the functional essence of the original (see
sections 4.2.3; 4.6.3; 4.12.3; and 4.16.3). Al-Maihb mainly succeeded in
reproducing a stylistic effect approximately equivalent to the original question as
far as the nature of the religious translation allowed. He had successfully used
lexical items which the researcher believes were used to express rhetorical
purposes (see sections 4.4.3 and 4.15.3). Khan succeeded in his use of negation
(see section 4.14.3). Similar to Al-Maihb, Khan had also succeeded in explaining
the meaning of the religious terms without distorting the message or the length of
the original questions (see sections 4.9.3 and 4.12.3).
A general account of the three English translations under investigation is that:
Amin and bin Razduq adopted a literal translation for the rhetorical questions. This
rejected the proclaim of the editors at the beginning of Amin and bin Razduqs
book that their translation is the best representation of An-Nawawi's Riyad-usSaliheen (Gardens of the Righteous) ever produced in any language any where
(Amin and bin Razduq, 1999,vol.1, p.7). Al-Maihb was very keen to give the
style of his rendering a pragmatic effect similar to that of the original. Finally,
Khan was a balanced translator. He preserved the lexical elements of the original
and added function-indicating devices whenever needed. His translation was as he
described in the introduction of his book an authentic record of the Sunnah of the
Prophet (Khan, 1975,p.x). Yet, it should be born in mind that the purpose here is
not to identify each and every weakness, since this was analyzed extensively in the
discussion section (see chapter 4). Rather, the purpose here is to point out that
every translation proved to have its shortcomings. Yet, it is possible through some
modifications to obtain a closer production to the rhetorical functions of the
original Hadiths questions. Put differently, translating great religious works, even
at its best, can never reach perfection. As Siddiqi (1977) states in his introduction:
Mere translation of words conveys no more than the outer shell,
and thus misses the original beauty of the words translated. The
problem becomes insurmountably difficult when we take into
consideration the fact that it is not the matter of translating a book of
Arabic into English but translating the words of the Holy Prophet
(may peace be upon him)The translation of his words and
expressions is, therefore, bound to remain but a distant and faulty

echo of the original meaning and spirit. (p.vii)
To sum up, the results rejected all the null hypotheses stated at the
beginning of the study (see section 1.5). The analysis discussed and the results
summarized revealed that:
4. Partial rather than complete functional equivalence could be achieved when
translating rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic into English.
5. There are certain linguistic and extra-linguistic signals and strategies used by
translators in order to convey the functions of the original rhetorical
questions when translating them into English.
6. Al-Maihb is considered slightly better in achieving functional equivalence
when translating rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic into English.
5.3 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be stated:
1. The phenomenon of rhetorical questions is found in both languages, Arabic and
English. Yet, the perceptions of this phenomenon vary according to different
cultures and linguistic backgrounds.
2. There is a broad communicative role of rhetorical questions in discourse. A
rhetorical question serves not only as an assertion but also as a directive and an
expressive speech act.
3. Equivalence of the illocutionary forces of rhetorical questions is an essential

element in translation in general and in religious translation in particular.
4. The degree of achieving functional equivalence in the translation of Hadiths
rhetorical questions is measured by the success or failure of the translator in
preserving and conveying the rhetorical function to the TL texts addresses.
5. The problem of translating Hadiths rhetorical questions into English lies
mainly in the inadequate reproduction of the pragmatic function of the original.
Such inadequate reproductions are the results of various factors (see section 5.2),
including: (1) the translators choice of ineffective strategy for rendering the
pragmatic meaning; (2) the involvement of some pragmatic functions that are not
readily translatable into the TL; and (3) the indecisiveness concerning the
pragmatic function of a rhetorical question (i.e., the ambiguous nature of a
rhetorical function) as it may combine more than one communicative function at a
time; and (4) the complicated relationship between rhetorical questions
grammatical forms and communicative functions.
6. Total objectivity in the assessment of the translation of rhetorical questions is
beyond reach. There has to be a degree of subjectivity as assessors differ in their
preferences and judgments of certain criteria.
7. The task of identifying a particular pragmatic function of a rhetorical question
is largely contingent on the context. No evaluation of the appropriateness of a
translation of a rhetorical question can be carried out without a clear perception of

the context and the social setting.
8. Searles (1969) work provides the necessary classification of English pragmatic
functions (i.e., speech acts). This enabled the researcher to identify how each
rhetorical function is realized in the English language and hence enabled her to
asses the degree of functional equivalence in the three different translations of AnNawawi's Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous)(1992).
9. Mousas levels of rhetorical questions (1992) and her distinction between them
helped the researcher to asses the translation of rhetorical questions in Hadith in a
quite objective manner.
10. When explicit signals are absent, two important indicators of a questions
rhetorical function are: (1) its situational context; and (2) its propositional content
or semantic structure.
11. In translation, neglecting the rhetorical purposes that underlie rhetorical
questions means transferring them on the basis of their denotative meanings and
apparent grammatical forms. This means disregarding the connotations of
rhetorical questions and their hidden purposes un-intentionally, due to lack of
knowledge, or intentionally for the sake of ease.
12. From a
functionalist
perspective,
translator
should
consider
the
communicative force of a SLs rhetorical question which goes far beyond the
propositional meaning of the original question. Only with this knowledge can a
translator produce a target rhetorical question that is appropriately structured and
formulated in order to effectively fulfill its intended purpose to its addressees.
13. It is obligatory for a translator who is attempting to achieve functional
equivalence in his translation of rhetorical questions to grasp the topic in his native
language first. This entails that when translating a rhetorical question, as Emery
(2004) asserts, a translator is a double negotiator. He has to: (1) interpret and infer
the original questions rhetorical function; and (2) render this pragmatic function
appropriately into the TT.
14. A translator has to heed four levels when translating rhetorical questions in
Hadith from Arabic into English: the syntactic, the semantic, the pragmatic, and
the aesthetic. He has to do his best in examining them in a given text, focusing on
the most important level forced by the related situation.
15. Finally, the translation of rhetorical questions of a sensitive text as Hadith is
bound with some losses of meaning not only because of the linguistic and cultural
differences reflected in the SL and the TL, but also because of the fact that the
possible intentions of the Prophet (PBUH) can never be determined fully and
precisely, simply because of the Prophets (PBUH) great eloquence. Hence, a
translator of Hadiths rhetorical questions should acknowledge the fact that his
translation can by no means replace the original. Yet, this should not prevent him
from aiming at reaching the nearest equivalent translation possible.
5.4 Recommendations
Based on the present study, the researcher puts forward the following
recommendations:
1. It is suggested that a committee, involving commentators and native specialists
in English and Arabic languages, be set up annually or so for the purpose of
revising and correcting the available translations in the light of the new discoveries
in the areas of linguistics and translation. This would help in publishing
communicative and authentic translations of Hadith books which highlight the
eloquence of the Prophets (PBUH) speeches. Embassies and Islamic centers
would be suitable places for holding these meetings. The effective participation
and commentaries of the committee of translation critics and assessors will
definitely draw the attention of translators to shortcomings, thus yielding a better
chance for improvement.
2. The above recommendation implies the need for an Islamic International
Organization specialized in assessing the accuracy of translating Hadith books with
a sufficient number of rhetoricians specialized in Arabic and English. It is only this
organization which will give the approval to any Hadith translation before it is
published.
3. Grammar courses in schools should focus on the functional aspect of the

language so that theory and practice can meet. Instead of focusing on listing and
memorizing purely theoretical rules, students should be enlightened on how such
theoretical rules can be used to serve certain functions. Notional syllabuses will
add a dimension of meaning in comparison with structural syllabuses (Al-Majed,
2000).
4. Translation courses in Saudi universities have to include a sufficient amount of
theoretical linguistic background in classical Arabic as well as modern English.
Most of the material for translation courses that are actually taught at our
university are TL oriented. This might result in an obvious inadequate knowledge
of classical Arabic among Arab students in translation classes.
5. As translators may frequently encounter rhetorical questions in almost all text
types, a special attention has to be paid to the implementation of the issue of
rhetorical questions in the curriculum, especially translation courses. Students must
have knowledge in the uses of rhetorical questions in Arabic and English, their
rhetorical purposes, and how to render them effectively in translation.
5.5 Suggestions for further research

Along these lines, a follow-up to the present study would be a further
investigation of the following areas:
1. Examining whether functional equivalence could be achieved, either totally or

partially, in the translation of rhetorical questions existing in other text types as
literary works, advertisements, technical texts, etc. This will enrich the literature
with guidelines regarding one of the most common problems in translation.
2. Further research can be done to determine the degree of achieving functional
equivalence in the translation of rhetorical functions of other Hadith performative
utterances (i.e., imperative, negative imperative, vocative, and wish).
3. Studies on the achievement of functional equivalence can be carried out on the
translation of other Hadith books or other translated versions of An-Nawawi's
Riyad-us-Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous)(1992).
4. Another comparative research can be conducted on different language pairs
(instead of Arabic and English) to find out whether the four levels of rhetorical
questions could help in figuring out and rendering the rhetorical functions of the
original questions.
5. An investigation of the translation of other rhetorical functions excluded from
this study may give a broader view on the phenomenon of functional equivalence
in the translation of rhetorical questions, especially that Beekman (1972) suggests
that a communicative function of a rhetorical question can use different linguistic
signals in different communicative settings.
6. It would also be interesting to investigate if there is any relationship existing

between the different functions of rhetorical questions and the degree of adequacy
in achieving functional equivalence when the questions are translated.
7. Finally, the present research is a pragmatic one. Another study might be
stylistic. It could investigate the techniques used to achieve stylistic equivalence in
the translation of rhetorical questions in Hadith from Arabic into English.
References
Abbasi, M. (1983). Riyadh-Us-Saleheen: Arabic-English. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia:
International Islamic Publishing House.
Abdel-Hafiz, A.S. (2003). Pragmatic and linguistic problems in the translation of
Naguib Mahfoz's the thief and the doges: A case study. Babel,49 (3), 229-252.
Al-Essa, N.S. (1990). Contrastive study of speech acts in English and Arabic. Girls
College of Education, Riyadh, KSA.
Ali, A. (1965). Al-Quran: A contemporary translation. Karachi:Akrash.
Al-Maihb, S. (1999). Riyad-us-Salihin. Beirut, Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah.
Al-Majed, F.M.(2000). Teaching English in Saudi female schools: Evaluative study.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Newcaslte Upon Tyne, UK.
Al-Malik, F. M. (1995). Performative utterances: Their basic and secondary
meanings with reference to five English translations of the meanings of the
Holy Qur'an. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Durham University, UK.
Al-Qinai,J. (2000). Translation quality assessment: Strategies, parameters and
procedures. Meta, XLV (3), 497-519.
Amin, M. & Bin Razduq, A. (1999). Commentary on Riyad-us-Saliheen (2 volumes).
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Darussalam.
Anzilotti, G. I. (1982). The rhetorical question as an indirect speech device in English
and Italian. Canadian Modern Language Review, 38, 290-302.
Arberry, A.J. (1964). The Koran interpreted. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Asad, M. (1993). The meaning of the Quran. Gibraltar: Dar Al-Andalus.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Azami, M.M. (1977). Studies in hadith methodology and literature. Indianapolis:
American Trust Publications.
Azar, B.S. (1999). Understanding and using English grammar. NJ: Prentice Hall
Regents.
Aziz, Y. (1998). Translation and pragmatic meaning. In A.Shunnaq et al (Eds.),
Issues in translation (pp.119-141). Jordan: Irbid National University.
Ba'albaki, M. (1992). Al-Mawrid: A modern English-Arabic dictionary. Beirut: DarEl-Ilm Lil-Malayeen.

Badarneh, M.A. (2003). The rhetorical questions as a discursive and stylistic device
in the Quran. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona University, US.
Baker, M. (1992). In other words: A course book on translation. London: Routledge.
Beaugrande, de R.& Dressler,W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London:
Longman.
Beekman, J. (1972). Analyzing and translating the questions of the new testament.
Notes on Translation, 44, 3-21.
Beekman, J.& Callow, J. (1979). Translating the word of God. Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House.
Bell, R.T. (1991). Translation and translating: Theory and practice. London:
Longman.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Modifiers as indicating devices: The case of requests.
Theoretical Linguistics, 12, 213-229.
Brislin, R.W. (1976). Translation: Applications and research. New York: Gaedner
Press, Inc.
Brunette, L. (2000). Towards a terminology for translation quality assessment: A
comparison of TQA practices. Education and Translation, 6 (2), 169-182.
Burton, J. (1994). An introduction to the hadith. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Cantarino, V. (1974). Syntax of modern Arabic prose (vols.1-3). Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Chang, N.F. (1996). Towards a better general theory of equivalent effect. Babel, 42
(1), 1-17.
Collins English Dictionary. (2000). Glasgow: Harrper Collins Publishers.
Corbett, E.& Connors, R. (1999). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (4th ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
El-Zeini, N.T. (1994). Criteria for the evaluation of translation: A pragma-stylistic
approach. Dissertation Abstract International. (UMI No.9523614).
Emery, P.G. (2004). Translation, equivalence and fidelity: A pragmatic approach.

Babel,50 (2), 143-167.
Fawcett, P. (1997). Translation and language: Linguistic theories explained.
Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
Ferrara, A. (1980). An extended theory of speech acts: Appropriateness conditions
for subordinate acts in sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 4, 233-252.
Frank, J. (1990). You call that a rhetorical question? Forms and functions of rhetorical
questions in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 723-738.
Gatti, M.C. (1999). Negative rhetorical figures and argumentation. In E.Rigotti (Ed.),
Rhetoric and Argumentation (pp.125-134). Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Ghazala, H. (2006). Translation as problems and solutions: A coursebook for
university students and trainee translators. Aleppo: Dar Al Kalam Al Arabi.
Gibbons, P. Busch, J. &Bradec, J.J. (1991). Powerful versus powerless language:
Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and cognitive response.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 115-133.
Grant, C.K. (1949). Promises. Mind,58, 359-66.
Greenbaum, S.& Quirk, R. (1990). A students grammar of the English language.
London: Longman.
Halliday, M . (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M ., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hamblin, C.L. (1987). Imperatives. Great Britain: T.S. Press Ltd.
Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. New York: Longman.
Haverkate, H. (1997). Indirectness in speech acts from a diachronic perspective: Some
Evolutionary aspects of rhetorical questions in Spanish dialogue. In J.Gvozanovic
(Ed.), Language Change and Functional Explanations (pp.219-246). Berlin:
Mouton de Grayter.
Herrmann, T. (1982). Speech and situations: A psychological conception of situated
speaking. Springer: Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Hervey, S.G. (1998). Speech acts and illocutionary function in translation
methodology. In L.Hickey (Ed.), The pragmatics of translation (pp.10-24).

London: Cromwell Press Ltd.
Hickey, L. (1998). The pragmatics of translation. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 345-365.
Hornby, S.A. (1974). Oxford advanced learner's dictionary of current English.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
House, J. (1977). A model for translation quality assessment. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: A model revisited. Tubingen:
Gunter Narr.
House, J. (2001). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social
evaluation. Meta, XLVI (2), 243-257.
IIie, C. (1993). On the translatability of rhetorical questions. In Y.Gambier & J.
Tommola (Eds.), Translation and Knowledge. Turku: University of Turku,
Center for Tanlstion and Interpreting.
IIie, C. (1994). What else can I tell you? A pragmatic study of English rhetorical
questions as discursive and argumentative acts. Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell
International.
Inani, A. (2004). Recent developments in translation theory. A review article. (No
documentation information is available).
Ish-Shihri, F.A. (2007). A textuality based model for the quality assessment of Hadith
translation. Unpublished doctorial dissertation, College of Education, Riyadh,
KSA.
Kertzer, J.M. (1987). Rhetorical questions: Consensus, authority, enigma. Language
and Style, 20, 242-256.
Khan, M.Z. (1975). Gardens of the Righteous. New York: Olive Branch Press.
Khashuqji, M.B. (1999). A linguistic analysis of interrogatives in Arabic: A
morophosyntactic study. Unpublished master's thesis, King Abdul-Aziz
University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your ps and qs. In C.Corum
Et al. (Eds.), Papers from the 9th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.
292-305). Chicago Linguistic Society.
Larson, M.L. (1974). The communicative situation and rhetorical questions. Notes on
Linguistics, 9, 14-18.
Larson, M.L. (1984). Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language
equivalence. New York: University Press of America.
Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Matthews, P.H. (1997). The concise oxford dictionary of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mittwoch, A. (1978). Grammar and illocutionary force. In Lingua: International
Review of General Linguistics, 33,33.
Mousa, A.J. (1995). The translation of rhetorical questions from Arabic into English.
Unpublished master's thesis, Yarmouk University, Amman, Jordan.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Nida, E.A. (1964). Toward a science of translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Owaidah, S. (1991). An empirical examination of the distance hypothesis in second
and foreign language leaning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Michigan, Michigan.
Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. (2005). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rohde, H. (2006, January). Rhetorical question as redundant interrogatives. Paper
presented at the Scholarship Repository, University of California, San Diego,
CA.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. (2003). What is the role of rhetorical questions in persuasion?
In J. Bryant, D. Roskos-Ewoldsen, & J. Cantor (Eds.), Communication and
emotion: Essays in honor of Ddf Zillmann (pp.297-321). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Sadock, J.M. (1974). Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. London: Academic
Press.
Sager, J.C. (1983). Quality and standards: The evaluation of translation. In C. Picken
(Ed.), The translator's handbook (pp.121-128). London: Aslib and contributors.
Saleh, M.I. (2002). A dictionary of Islamic words and expressions. Riyadh: Muntada
Al-Islami.
Schaffner, C. (1997). From good to functionally appropriate: Assessing translation
quality. Current Issues in Language and Society, 4 (1), 1-5.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J.R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5,
1-23.
Searle, J.R.,Kiefer, F., & Bierwisch, M. (Eds.). (1980). Speech act theory and
pragmatics. London: D.Reidel Publishing Company.
Shunnaq, A. (1998). Problems in translating Arabic texts into English. In A.Shunnaq
et al (Eds.), Issues in translation (pp.33-52). Jordan: Irbid National University.
Siddiqi, A. (1977). Translation of Sahih Muslim. Lahore: Pakistan.
Slater, M.D. (2002). Involvement as goal-directed strategic processing. In J.P. Dillard
& M.Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice
(pp.175-194). London: Sage.
Stalnaker, R.C. (1972). Pragmatics. In D.Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics
of natural language (pp.380-397). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Sykes, J.B. (1976). The concise oxford dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2000). Boston:
Hougnton Mifflin Company.
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. (2009, July 7). Retrieved July 7,
2009, from http:// www.encyclopedia .com/doc/10999-glad.html.
Tripp, S.E. (1976). Is sybil there? The structure of some American English directives.
Language in Society,5, 25-66.
Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Williams, M. (2001). The application of argumentation theory to translation quality
assessment . Meta, XLVI (2), 326-344.
Wills, W. (1982). The science of translation: problems and methods. Tubingen:
Verlag Press.
Wright, W. (1964). A grammar of the Arabic language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Yule, G. (2008). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zequan, L. Register analysis as a tool for translation quality assessment. (2008, July
7). Retrieved July 20, 2005, from http://accurapid.com/journal/25register.htm
Zillmann, D. (1972). Rhetorical elicitation of agreement in persuasion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 159-165.

.(2004) . . : .
.(1990) . . : .
.(2000) . . : .
.(2006) . .
: .
.(1991) . :
. : .
.(2004) . :
. : .
.(2002). : . .
.
.(2001) . . : .
.(1987) . . : .
.(2007) . . : .
.(1966) . . : .
.(2004) . . :
.
.(2005) . . : .
.(2003) . :
. . .
.(1960) . . :
.
.(1980) . .
: .
.(1992) . . : .
.(2004) . : .
: .
.(1985). : .
. .
.(1998) . : . : .
.(1985) . . : .
.(1953) . . . : .
.(1999) . . : .
.(2000) . :- . :
.
Appendix
Evaluation Questionnaire
Introduction:
Translation deals with language in use, which is concerned with speech events or text events.
Therefore, consideration of the illocutionary force (i.e., pragmatic function) is of a great
significance for translation quality assessment.
Among the figurative aspects of a language which a translator should identify and comprehend
their pragmatic functions are rhetorical questions. These are questions which look like standard
questions but are neither used nor should be interpreted as standard questions.
Dear respondents,
This questionnaire is designed to find out whether or not three translations of 17 Hadiths
rhetorical questions convey adequately the secondary meanings of the original rhetorical
questions (i.e., achieving functional equivalence). Based on El-Zeinis belief (1994) that nonequivalence of lexis, grammar, and stylistic devices has its considerable impact on functional
equivalence (p.184), the evaluation of these rhetorical questions will be done in terms of four
levels: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and aesthetic. The syntactic level is concerned with the
accurate rendering of the grammatical form of the rhetorical question (i.e., its interrogative
form). The semantic level deals with the accurate translation of the lexical terms that constitute
the meaning of the target rhetorical question. The pragmatic level has to do with the ability of the
translator to convey appropriately the secondary purpose (i.e., illocutionary force) of the
rhetorical question in his translation. Finally, the aesthetic level has to do with the appropriate
usage of the interrogative form instead of other forms of language (e.g., statements, commands,
etc.) as such form appeal to senses.
The Arabic version of each Hadith is given with the rhetorical question to be evaluated written in
bold. This is followed by the three translations of the rhetorical question; each translation is
identified by a number: T1, T2, and T3. Read each Hadith and pay special attention to the
question in the text. Try to understand their intended meanings in context. Then, evaluate each of
the three translations in terms of the four levels mentioned above. Each translation should be
assigned a value in a 3-points Likert Scale (1= Not at all; 2= Somewhat; 3= Completely) by
ticking the appropriate box under each criterion.
Thank you for giving the time to participate. Your participation is of great help to the researcher
as well as to educational research. Before you answer, please give the following information:
Name:
Nationality:
...
Sex:
Male
Female
Occupation:
..
Major
of
specialization:
Arabic:
Knowledge
of
..
)HADITH (1
:

: " :" : " :
) "..(811992
78. Who will defend you from me? (1999, p. 39).

T1
78. Who will then protect you from me? (1999, Vol.1: p.97).
T2
78. Now who will deliver you from me? (1975, p.24).
T3
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
3
The
Arabic
Text
Rate
T1
T2
T3
)HADITH (2
: :

" :

" :
" :
) "..(98,1992
The
Arabic
Text
120. Has not God granted you what you can give as alms of?! (1999, p.52).
120. Has Allah not prescribed for you (a course) following which you can (also) give
Sadaqah? (1999, Vol.1: p.134).
T1
T2
120. Has not Allah endowed you with that which you can employ for charity? (1975,
p.33).
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
T3
Rate
T1
T2
T3
)HADITH (3
: :

" :

" :
" :
) "..(98,1992
The
Arabic
Text
120. Had he satisfied it through a forbidden way, would he have had a sin? (1999, p.52).
120. You see, if he were to satisfy it with something forbidden, would it not be a sin on
his part? (1999, Vol.1: p.135).
120. If he satisfied his urge unlawfully would it not be sinful? (1975, p.33).
T3
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
T1
T2
Rate
T1
T2
T3
)HADITH (4
: " :

:
" : :
The
Arabic
Text
.(1992100 " )
126. O Gods Messenger, shall we be rewarded for (doing good to) beasts? (1999,
p.54).
126. Shall we be rewarded for showing kindness to the animals also? (1999, Vol.1:
p.138).
126. Messenger of Allah, are we rewarded for kindness to animals also? (1975, p.34).
T1
T2
T3
Level
Syntactic
Rate
Semantic
3
Pragmatic
3
Aesthetic
3
T1
T2
T3
HADITH (5)
The
Arabic
Text
:" " :
" :

"
.(1992138)
218. Do you know who is the bankrupt? (1999, p. 86).

T1
218. Do you know who is the bankrupt? (1999, Vol.1: p.224).
T2
220. Do you know who is a pauper? (1975, p.57).
T3
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Rate
T1
T2
T3
HADITH (6)
Aesthetic
1
The
Arabic
Text
T1
T2
T3
: :
.(188,1992 ): :
372. When would be the Hour of Resurrection? (1999, p.124).
372. When will be the Hour (i.e., the Day of Resurrection)? (1999, Vol.1: p.336).
372. When will the Judgment be? (1975, p.83).
Level
Syntactic
Rate
Semantic
3
Pragmatic
3
Aesthetic
3
T1
T2
T3
HADITH (7)
The
Arabic
Text
:
" " : . : " :
" : :

.(2121992" ).
431. Are you pleased to form a fourth of the inhabitants of Paradise? (1999, p. 142).
431. Are not you pleased that you will constitute one-fourth of the inhabitants of
Jannah? (1999, Vol.1: p.395).
434. Would it please you if you were to be a quarter of the dwellers of Paradise? (1975,
T3
p.96).
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
T1
T2
Rate
T1
T2
T3
HADITH (8)
The
Arabic
Text
" :
:
" ! :
.(1992218 )
444. Woe unto it! Where are you taking it? (1999, p. 147).
T1
444. Woe to it. Where are you taking it? (1999, Vol.1: p.410).
T2
447. Woe to it, where are you taking it? (1975, p.100).
T3
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Rate
Aesthetic
1
T1
T2
T3
HADITH (9)
The
Arabic
Text
" :
" :"
.(2301992 !" )
483. Have you any property but what you eat and use up, what you, dress and thereby
make worn out, or what you give as charity and that is sent forward (saved for you)?
(1999, p. 156).
483. Do you own of your wealth other than what you eat and consume, and what you
T2
wear and wear out, or what you give in Sadaqah (charity) (to those who deserve it), and
that what you will have in stock for yourself. (1999, Vol.1: p.436).
486. While out of his property only that is his which he eats and consumes, and wears and
T3
wears out and spends in charity and sends ahead. (1975, p.105).
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
T1
Rate
T1
T2
T3
)HADITH (10
:
:
" : !"
" :
! " )1992
.(284
The
Arabic
Text
651. Do you intercede to infringe one of Gods legal limits? (1999, p. 197).
651. Do you intercede when one of the legal punishments ordained by Allah has been
violated? (1999, Vol.1: p.559).
654. Do you seek to intercede in the matter of the limits prescribed by Allah? (1975,
T3
p.133).
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
T1
T2
Rate
T1
T2
T3
)HADITH (11
" : :
:
" ).(439,1992
The
Arabic
Text
1216. Where are the fasters? (1999, p. 327).

T1
1216. Where are those who observe fasting? (1999, Vol.2: p.929).
T2
1222. Where are those who observed the fast regularly? (1975, p.213).
T3
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
Rate
T1
T2
T3
HADITH (12)
The
Arabic
Text
": : :
" :" " :"
"! : "
.(4581992)
1297. Are you able to enter Your Mosque, when the fighter in Gods cause sets out, and
stand for prayer but never lag, and fast but never break your fast? (1999, p.344).
1298. One who goes but for Jihad in the Cause of Allah is like a person who observes
T2
Saum (fasting), stands in Salat (prayer) constantly, and does not exhibit any lassitude in
fasting and prayer until the participant of Jihad in the way of Allah returns. (1999, Vol.2:
p.974).
1303. Have you the strength that when a person goes forth to strive in the cause of Allah
T3
You should enter the mosque and stand in Prayer and not interrupt it and observe the fast
and not break it (till he should return)? (1975, p.223).
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
T1
Rate
T1
T2
T3
HADITH (13)
The
Arabic
Text
" :

-
: : :-
: : : .
: . : ! : . : :
. : : : ! : :
. : :
. : )"..(1992496
1446. How would it be if they see My Fire?! (1999, p. 379).
T1
1447. How would they act if they were to see My Fire? (1999, Vol.2: p.1070).
T2
1452. What if they were to see My Fire? (1975, p.242).
T3
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
3
Rate
T1
T2
T3
)HADITH (14
: : :
" :
" " :
" "
" "" " : "
: " : " " :
!" : " : " :
" :
" ).(5221992
The
Arabic
Text
1521. Is there anything that throws people on their face in the fire but the results of their
tongues? (1999, p. 402).
1522. People will be thrown on their faces into the Hell on account of their tongues.
T2
(1999, Vol.2: p.1129).
1527. Will people not be thrown face down into hell only on account of the harvest of the
T3
tongue? (1975, p.256).
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
T1
Rate
T1
T2
T3
HADITH (15)
The
Arabic
Text

" : " " :
.(5481992" ). !"
1578. What is this, O owner of this victual? (1999, p. 420).

T1
1579. What is this? (1999, Vol.2: p.1181).
T2
1584. What is this? (1975, p.268).
T3
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Rate
Aesthetic
3
T1
T2
T3
HADITH (16)
The
Arabic
Text

" : " " :
.(5481992" ). !"
1578. Why did not you place it (the wet part) over the food stuff so that people take notice
of it! (1999, p.420).
1579. Why did you not place this (the drenched part of the heap) over the corn so that
T2
people might see it? (1999, Vol.2: p.1181).
1584. Why did you not let it remain on top so that people could see it? (1975, p.268).
T3
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
T1
Rate
T1
T2
T3
)HADITH (17
" :
. " :
" " "
:
").(1992626
The
Arabic
Text
1850. How can his supplication be responded to? (1999, p. 487).

T1
1851. How can then his supplication be accepted? (1999, Vol.2: p.1368).
T2
1857. How would the supplication of such a one find acceptance? (1975, p.312).
T3
Level
Syntactic
Semantic
Pragmatic
Aesthetic
3
Rate
T1
T2
T3
. .

/ )/(

ترجمة الاستفهام البلاغي في الحديث

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ترجمة الاستفهام البلاغي في الحديث

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

King Saud University

Deanship of Higher Studies

The Translation of Rhetorical Questions in Hadith from Arabic into

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

1.2 Significance of the study

1.3 Statement of the problem

1.4 Purpose of the study

1.5 Research hypotheses

1.6 Delimitations of the study

1.7 Definition of terms

Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature

2.1 Functional equivalence in translation

2.2 Rhetorical questions in Arabic

2.3 Rhetorical questions in English

2.4 The translation of rhetorical questions

2.5 Hadiths translation quality assessment

2.6 Rhetorical questions in Hadith studies

Chapter Three: Methodology

3.1 Research data

3.2 Data analysis

3.2.1 Theoretical frame of analysis

3.2.2 Procedures for data analysis

Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Evaluation

4.1 Hadith (1)

4.1.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.1.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.2 Hadith (2)

4.2.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.2.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.3 Hadith (3)

4.3.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.3.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.4 Hadith (4)

4.4.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.4.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.5 Hadith (5)

4.5.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.5.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.6 Hadith (6)

4.6.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.6.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.7 Hadith (7)

4.7.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.7.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.8 Hadith (8)

4.8.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.8.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.9 Hadith (9)

4.9.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.9.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.10 Hadith (10)

4.10.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.10.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.11 Hadith (11)

4.11.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.11.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.12 Hadith (12)

4.12.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.12.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.13 Hadith (13)

4.13.1 English Translation of the Hadith

4.13.2 Rhetorical Function of the Question

4.14 Hadith (14)

4.14.1 English Translation of the Hadith