Introduction

Translation has been a significant activity needed to bring communities and cultures together. However, it is no longer understood as a linguistic shift from one language to another. New approaches appearing in translation studies resulted in changing the traditional thought of conveying the text from one language into another (Bassnett, 2013). For instance, “cultural turn” approach coined by Susan Bassnett has given translation a new meaning as a powerful act of mediation between cultures (Castro et al. 2017). In today’s globalized world, the number of immigrants who have entered into multilingual and multicultural societies has grown tremendously. Consequently, new types of translation, such as “self-translation,” have emerged.

Self-translation or auto-translation is “the translation of an original work into another language by the author himself” (Popovič, 1976, p. 19). It has been practiced since ancient Greece (Grutman, 2013). Despite being very similar, translation and self-translation differ in some aspects (Jung, 2002). For example, the author and translator are not the same in translation, but they are in self-translation. A critical problem in self-translation is that the translator may not achieve fidelity (Jung, 2002). That is why self-translation is sometimes regarded as a different translation or a rewriting process. Different texts, such as literary and religious texts, have been subjected to self-translation.

Translation of religious texts is essential in facilitating communication among people of different faiths. It helps bridge cultural gaps and promotes cultural exchange. It also fosters tolerance, dialogue, and collaboration by serving as a link across cultural and religious boundaries. Translating Islamic religious texts, such as the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad’s instructions, includes essential beliefs and principles whose accurate and faithful translation contributes to mutual respect and understanding between various religious communities.

Fidelity or faithfulness in translation, on the other hand, refers to the extent to which a translated text accurately conveys the intent, meaning, and style of the source text. It involves accurately translating the source text into the target language while preserving its nuances, cultural references, and intended message. Zhang and Liu (2015) argued that fidelity is conveying the content of the source text (ST) into the target text (TT) accurately and honestly without any distortion or omission. Any loss or misrepresentation of the ST is thus unacceptable. Accurate comprehension and faithful portrayal of the ST necessitate a fluent translator in both the ST and the TT. Fidelity also refers to the consistency of the author’s writing style, thoughts, and feelings. It is sometimes challenging to achieve fidelity in translation for several reasons, including cultural and linguistic differences between languages, subjectivity in interpreting texts, ideological and political factors, constraints, and translation limitations. According to Ajunwa (2015), the assessment of any translated text is made by examining the level of fidelity the translator achieves.

For decades, fidelity in translation has drawn the attention of scholars around the globe. The importance of this concept in translation studies calls for the need for further research. This study primarily examines fidelity in the Arabic-English versions of Friday sermons by Sheikh Mohammed Ewes based on Ajunwa’s (2015) approach. Mainly, it aims to investigate whether or not the self-translator achieved the concept of fidelity. Secondarily, it highlights whether this self-translation can be regarded as a translation or a rewriting. Fidelity in translation represents a potential frontier in the field of translation studies. It allows authors to communicate their ideas and thoughts across linguistic barriers while aiming for faithfulness. It is noteworthy that fidelity and faithfulness are often used interchangeably in translation studies.

Literature review

Self-translation

Many studies have been conducted on self-translation (e.g., Nugroho and Laksman, 2020; Tekalp, 2020; Elimam, 2019; Waite, 2018). Nugroho and Laksman (2020), who employed CDA to study variation in the lexical category of the style markers in self-translation, reported that variation occurs because the author’s ideology is expressed in two different languages for different audiences. Accordingly, different techniques that help change the lexical choices in translation and avoid using the literal strategy were employed. Exploring how intertextual allusions are handled in self-translation, Tekalp (2020) pointed out that the self-translator used a foreignization strategy in more than half of the selected examples and opted to preserve the allusions of the ST. On the other hand, Elimam (2019) examined the similarities and differences of Muslim Imams’ self-translation practices in the Friday congregations. He adopted the participant-oriented approach by interviewing Muslim imams in the UK. The results of his investigation indicated that improving audience communication is one of the critical motivations for self-translation.

Moreover, Waite (2018) studied the self-translated work of three trans-lingual francophone writers: Samuel Beckett, Julia Green, and Nancy Huston. Particularly, Waite (2018) examined how translation loss, i.e., literal translation, omission, rewriting, and linguistic creativity, occurred within the self-translated work and compared their work with non-self-translation work. Some researchers have considered self-translation a rewriting process (Waite, 2018; Bran, 2016; Candan, 2019). By way of explanation, Waite (2018) pointed out that self-translation is a dramatic form of rewriting and recreation. Furthermore, Bran (2016) claimed that the “author-translator” rewrites some parts of the original text to make them more comprehensive. Bran (2016) also concluded that self-translation is a rewriting process rather than a translation. The author’s authority over the text allows him to change some parts, such as additions, deletions, and explanations. Similarly, Candan (2019) also pointed out that self-translation cannot be a proper translation since self-translators have full authority over their texts and can make appropriate changes.

Fidelity in translation

Fidelity has been investigated by several researchers, such as Moneyhun (2012), Abdelaal (2019), Shoubash (2018), Ezeibe (2017), and Zou (2016). For example, Moneyhun (2012) divided the choices of fidelity into two axes: the language axis (literal translation), in which the foreignness of the source text is preserved in the TTand the meaning axis (liberal translation), in which the translator conveys the meaning of the ST in a way that is readable and smooth. Abdelaal (2019) investigated the problems that translators face in translating some verses of the Holy Quran based on Diniz’s (2003) approach. Abdelaal believes that a translator’s failure to keep the original wording and expression at all leads to unfaithfulness to the ST. It was also guided by Nida and Taber’s (1982) notion of faithfulness, who both emphasize the importance of being faithful to the ST. The results revealed that the main problem in translating the Holy Qur’an is conveying the equivalence of the words rather than their correct sense. Shoubash (2018) investigated the principles of fidelity by focusing on two axes: literal translation and liberal translation. The findings revealed that the translator should interpret the author’s meaning and purpose instead of translating the text’s language.

Furthermore, Ezeibe (2017) measured the concept of fidelity in the Igbo literature and its English-translated versions based on the Interpretive translation model. Similarly, Zou (2016) examined fidelity in Chinese-English self-translated works, focusing on the connection between faithfulness and self-translation. The findings showed that even self-translators cannot guarantee complete equivalence or complete faithfulness in translation. According to Zou (2016), self-translators deliberately change the style or contents in their translations due to the following reasons: (1) translators’ subjectivity; (2) translators’ pursuit for perfection; (3) adaptation to the target readers; (4) and cultural factors outside translation.

Subjectivity and bias in translation

Subjectivity in translation refers to the influence of the translator’s personal opinions, sentiments, and interpretations on the translated text. It occurs because language contains cultural specifics, context, and different shades of meaning. Translators make subjective decisions based on their knowledge, experience, and points of view. Subjectivity also includes cultural interference, reader awareness, personal traits, and social and ideological positions. Dweik (2000) argues that “cultural interference could weaken communication and distort the message, and it also creates misunderstanding” (P. 233). Translators’ subjectivity can be affected by personal and social considerations. The former comprises the translator’s bilingual and intercultural skills, personality, etc. The latter involves ideology, power, and other factors that influence translators. Thus, the translator acts as a manipulator who carries out political and cultural intervention through recreation, and sometimes, he/she enjoys the freedom of attaching meanings to the TT (Davis, 2001). On the other hand, bias occurs when the translator’s personal views, cultural backgrounds, or preferences negatively affect the translation, resulting in a distorted version of the ST. It can come in many forms, such as changing the tone, highlighting particular aspects, or selectively translating content. Translators must strive for objectivity in order to produce faithful translations.

Methods

This study employs qualitative research methods. The study’s data was elicited from a bilingual Arabic-English book entitled “الخطب المنبرية بالعربية والانجليزية” (Pulpit sermons in Arabic and English). The book, written and translated by Ewes, contains 80 Friday sermons preached by Ewes at Al-Birr mosque in the UK over a 25-year period. It is divided into 80 different topics and is arranged per the Islamic calendar (Al-Hijri Calendar). The sermons were all authored in Arabic and simultaneously translated into English. Both Arabic and English versions appear on opposite pages. The information above was obtained through two direct phone calls with Sheik Ewes, who was very cooperative and supportive. Each call lasted around 20 min, in which he provided personal information about his life and Friday sermons in the UK.

Ewes is a 62-year-old Egyptian Muslim imam. He obtained his degree in the fundamentals of religion from Al-Azhar University before immigrating to the United Kingdom in 1996. He has worked as a preacher at Al-Birr Mosque in London for more than 25 years. The community where he lives is mostly made up of Pakistanis, Indians, and Afghans. Ewes compiled all of his Friday sermons in one book to make it more convenient for other Muslim preachers to deliver them in Arabic and English. He also published the book in the mosque’s library for easy access.

The data for this study was selected using probability sampling. This random sampling technique ensures that every item in the studied population has an equal opportunity to be represented (Saldanha and O’Brien, 2014). A total of eight sermons out of eighty were chosen for this study.

Having selected the Arabic and English versions, they were compared against each other to identify issues of variation between them. Specifically, the units of analysis included linguistic expressions such as words, phrases, sentences, and more prominent elements like paragraphs. The selected data were categorized based on Ajunwa’s (2015, p. 28) fidelity indicators for assessing the concept of fidelity, which include the following: factual accuracy, correctness, harmony, transparency, tonality, and admissibility.

Findings

This section presents the findings of the data analysis. The Arabic examples and their self-translation are given to illustrate each fidelity indicator.

Factual accuracy

According to Ajunwa (2015), the translation of facts, names, numerical codes, and figures must be as accurate as those contained in the ST. Anari (2004) also points out that the exactness of the information transferred determines the accuracy of the text. Thus, the ST message should be conveyed entirely in the TT without distortion or reordering. The data analysis shows that the author/translator occasionally mistranslated names or numbers into the TT.

Example 1:

عن ابي بكرة قال: مر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بقبرين فقال:“ انهما ليعذبان وما يعذبان في كبير والغيبة سبب في عذاب القبر”

Backbiting and gossip are some of the reasons that lead Muslims to be tortured in their graves. Ibn Abbas narrated that the messenger of Allah passed by two graves and said,” They are being punished, but they are not being punished for anything that was difficult to avoid…..

(“Al-Nahi an Al-‘ebah, p.44 - Backbiting s, p.47.)

In his sermon on backbiting, the author refers to this Hadith, whose narrator in the ST is Abu Bakra Al-Thaqafi. He narrates that the prophet Mohammed passed by two graves and said to his companions that they were being punished for things like backbiting that were not difficult to avoid. The self-translator changes the name of the narrator in the ST, “Abu Bakra” into “Ibn Abbas” in the TT. Accordingly, the above example shows that the self-translator did not accurately render the narrator’s name into the TT. This modification can be attributed to the fact that Ibn Abbas initially narrated this Hadith; the author notes the wrong name in the ST and then corrects it in his TT. The self-translator here uses his authority over his text. From the perspective of translation ethics, any form of change to the ST is not permissible because the translator’s main task is to faithfully transmit precise information across the two texts.

In addition, Ewes adds the word “gossip,” which means “النميمه” in Arabic to the English version. Backbiting is an entirely different concept from gossip. Backbiting is the act of disparaging someone without their knowledge, whereas gossip is the act of discussing another person’s private matters. The author in the ST refers to backbiting rather than gossiping, yet the act of gossiping is being added to the TT. All of this demonstrates how the self-translator modifies the content in the TT using his background knowledge of the subject. That is, he changed the name of the narrator because of his prior familiarity with religious data. It thus affects his role as a translator, leading to disparities between the two texts. As a result, this variation between the two texts violates fidelity by not being true to the ST and TT. By making the adjustments above, it could also be argued that the self-translator behaves more like an author than a translator.

Example 2:

قال الرجل: أنا أخبركم عنه فأذن له فدخل على مسلمة، فقال: إن صاحب النقب يأخذ عليكم ثلاثاً: ألا تسودو اسمه في صحيفة الى الخليفة ولا تأمرو له بشيء ولا تسألوه من هو.

The man said, “I will tell you, but first you have to promise me two things: the first is that you don’t ask me his name, and the second is that you don’t try to reward him.”

(Al-Ikhlas p.137. Sincerity, p.140)

The above excerpt was drawn from a tale mentioned in Ewes’s lecture about sincerity. This incident occurred during a Muslim battle against the Romans when Maslamah bin Abdul-Malik led the Muslim army. The Muslim army was on the verge of surrender after they could not breach the Roman defenses. In the middle of the night, one of the Muslim soldiers got up, raced inside the Roman gate, ripped a large hole in the walls, and yelled for the Muslim army to enter the city. At the end of this battle, the Muslim forces emerged victorious. The soldier who committed this act, however, was unknown. After the battle, the leader, Maslamah, summoned the soldiers and asked that the person who performed this daring act emerge so that he could be praised. When Maslamah returned to his tent, a masked man appeared and claimed to have dug the hole, but Maslamah was unable to identify him due to his mask. according to the author of the ST, the man told Maslamah that he would tell the truth provided that he promised to do three things, not to disclose what the man did in a letter to the caliph, not to inquire about his identity, and not to reward him because of what he did to win Paradise. However, the author misrepresented the meaning of the TT. He first claimed that the man urged Maslamah to do only two things, not three, not to ask him for his name and not to reward him. This illustration demonstrates how the self-translator failed to translate data and figures from the ST into the TT correctly. Ewes made some modifications to the TT by deleting the first sentence of the message, which is “ألا تسودو اسمه في صحيفه إلى الخليفة”. He also substituted the number “ثلاثاً” (three) with (two) in the TT. Thus, the self-translator made unfortunate modifications to the TT and rendered the ST information incorrectly, infringing on the concept of fidelity.

Correctness

A correct translation is measured by the degree to which it adheres to the rules of grammar, punctuation, capitalization, spelling, line breaks, etc. (Fitria, 2021). Ajunwa (2015) confirms that a translation must be free from grammatical, structural, and orthographic mistakes. In this study, the correctness of the self-translated text was evaluated by observing English writing conventions as well as general grammatical rules and sentence structures that are different between Arabic and English. The following example explains the point above:

Example 1:

تحدثنا في الأسبوع الماضي حول الأيام الأخيرة من حياة خير البشر محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم…..

We spoke last week about the last days in the life of the best kind, the prophet Mohammed.

(Rabi’Al-Awal w Thakeret Al-Islam 3, p.96 - The Islamic history- Rabi‘ Al-Awwal 3, p.98)

The example above is extracted from the sermon about brotherhood, in which Ewes highlights Prophet Mohammed’s most significant achievement of making a bond of brotherhood between Al-Muhajireen (the Emigrants) and Al-Ansar (the Helpers). The self-translator here uses a word-for-word technique without considering the differences in word order between Arabic and English. In English grammar, the position of the adverb of time “last week” is either an initial position or an ending position for emphasis (Eastwood, 1994). ‏Therefore, it can be translated as “Last week, we spoke about…” or “We spoke about…….. last week” to make the sentence structurally correct. The self-translator seems not to have noticed the variation between Arabic and English grammar. Consequently, his errors, intentional or unintentional, violate fidelity in translating the Arabic text.

Example 2:

نفرح برمضان لأنه شهر يربينا على الصبر على الطاعات،والصبر عن الشهوات

A believer feels happy with the coming of Ramadan because it is the time of learning patience, of doing good deeds, and of keeping away from disobedience.

(Istiqbal Ramadan, p.326 - Welcome Ramadan, p.330)

This example describes how Muslims rejoice when Ramadan, the month of fasting, arrives since it is a beautiful and beloved month for Muslims worldwide. In this holy month, Muslims are undoubtedly encouraged to abstain from sins and consistently perform good deeds because it is unquestionably the most sacred month for God and Muslims. In the ST, the author explains why individuals are happy. The first reason is that fasting from sunrise to sunset teaches Muslims to be patient, perform good deeds, and help them steer clear of evil doing.

When Ewes conveyed the message into the TT, he used a comma between “the time of learning patience” and “of doing good deeds and keeping away from disobedience.” Consequently, upon reading this sentence independent of its original ST, one will understand that Ramadan teaches Muslims only three things: patience, doing good deeds, and giving up disobedience. The author’s intended meaning in the ST is that Ramadan emphatically teaches Muslims how to be patient in doing good deeds, how to continue to do them, and how to stay away from perpetrating and committing sins. If we do a back translation, it will look like “يُسعد المؤمن بقدوم شهر رمضان لأنه الوقت الذي يتعلم فيه الصبر والقيام بالطاعات والابتعاد عن المعاصي,” which is different in meaning from that in the ST. Furthermore, the self-translator added the first statement in the example above: “A believer feels happy with the coming of Ramadan” into the TT. The sentence in the ST begins with the verb phrase “نفرح برمضان,” meaning “we rejoice at the arrival of Ramadan.The pronoun “we” refers to all Muslims around the world.”

On the contrary, the added sentence in the TT implies that only believers are pleased by Ramadan’s arrival. There is a difference between Muslims and believers. A believer demonstrates the spirit of faith in his acts and deeds and has true faith in his heart, whereas a Muslim believes in God and upholds the five pillars of Islam. Every Muslim is a believer, but not every believer is a Muslim. As a result, this addition transformed the ST’s meaning into a different one in the TT.

Harmony

Harmony, for Ajunwa (2015), means that a faithful translator should prevent any intentional loss or gain of information, as well as any attempt to alter or enhance the original text’s content. The notion of loss is defined by Nozizwe and Ncube (2014) as the inevitable attempt to omit some ST elements while transferring the message into the TT. On the other hand, deletion is entirely or partially eliminating elements from a text. Naturally, this approach entails some degree of translation loss, which impacts the original text, the message, and the intended audience (Higgins and Hervey, 1992). Examples of deletion and addition were identified in the data.

Deletion

أيها المسلمون:

أما عن أهمية المسجد في الإسلام؛ فقد بين القران الكريم أنه بيت الله تعالى في الأرض؛ لذا وجب على كل من آمن بالله تعالى وعلم قدره أن يُقدر المسجد، وأن يراعي فيه الآداب التي بينها الله تعالى ورسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول الله تعالى: “ وأن المساجد لله فلا تدعو مع الله أحدا “ولأنه بيت الله فهو البيت الوحيد على الأرض الذي يجب ان تكون له مكانته العالية الرفيعة، يقول الله تعالى :” في بيوت الله أذن أن ترفع ويذكر فيها اسمه يسبح له فيها بالغدو الأصال رجالٌ لا تلهيهم تجارةٌ ولا بيعٌ عن ذكر الله وإقام الصلاة وإيتاء الزكاة يخافون يوماً تتقلب فيه القلوب والأبصار“ وقد حثنا الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم على بناء المساجد؛ فعن عثمان رضي الله عنه قال: سمعتُ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: “ من بنى مسجد لله بنى الله له في الجنة مثله“ وكذلك هو أحب مكان إلى الله تعالى؛ فيقول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: “أحبُ البلاد إلى الله مساجدها، وأبغض البلاد إلى الله أسواقها.”

TT: _Empty text____________________________________

(Makanet Al-Masjid, p. 187, the importance of masjid)

This example discusses the role and functions of the mosque in Islam as well as the responsibilities of Muslims towards the mosque. Many examples of deletion were revealed in the data. Some constitute deleting a word, a phrase, or a whole paragraph. For instance, Ewes did not offer an English translation for the Arabic text mentioned above; the entire text above was missing from the self-translation. Thus, such a deletion of information profoundly causes a complete semantic loss in the TT message. Ewes needed to be more faithful to his ST. Based on this, we conclude that he was rewriting the text in another language.

Addition

قال سعد لعبد الرحمن:” إني أكثر الأنصار مالاً فاقسم مالي نصفين، ولي امرأتان فانظر أعجبهما إليك فسمها فإذا انقضت عدتها فتزوجها. قال له عبد الرحمن: بارك الله لك في أهلك ومالك، ولكن دلني على السوق .”

Sa’ad bin Ar-Rabi‘ said to his brother Abdul Rahman bin Awf:” I am the richest man amongst the Al-Ansar. I am glad to share my property half-and-half with you. I have two wives, I am ready to divorce one and then you may marry her; and I have two houses you can take one of them”. But Abdul-Rahman was not prepared to accept neither property nor home. So he blessed his brother and said: “Kindly direct me to the market so that I may make my fortune with my own hands”.

(“الإخوه”; Al-Ikhwh, p.9. Brotherhood, p.12)

The story of this example concerns Abdul Rahman bin Awf and his emigrant brother Sa’ad bin Ar-Rabi. When Prophet Mohammed migrated from Mecca to Medina, his followers left all their properties and belongings behind in Mecca. When they arrived in Medina, the prophet established a bond of brotherhood between the emigrants “Al-Muhajreen” and the citizens of Madina “Al-Ansar,” making them equal in all aspects. To help Sa’ad bin Ar-Rabi, a man from Muhajreen, Abdul Rahman bin Awf, a man from Al-Ansar, offered him half of his property and one of his wives. Very graciously, Sa’ad declined the offer.

The author in the ST briefly narrates this story. His English translation is much longer and more detailed. To provide further context, he gives certain information absent from the ST. The two explanatory statements by the author, “I have two houses; you can take one of them” and “I may create my wealth with my own hands,” were added to the TT. This illustration demonstrates how the self-translator enhances the text by adding extra information to the TT. Due to his unrestricted sense of freedom and control over the TT, he applies his additional knowledge of the rest of the story there, producing an intentional or unintentional change to the ST. As a result, an opposing text, amply displaying the infidelity of the self-translator, was created. Adding more information to the TT proves that the self-translator was rewriting his text rather than translating it.

Modification of the Message

Example 1:

عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال:” إن من أربى الربا الاستطالة في عرض المسلم بغير حق “

The prophet said: A person who gossips about his Muslims brothers and sisters will not enter paradise.

(Al-Nahi an Al-khaibah, p.44. Backbiting, p.46)

Ewes cites this Hadith in a passage where he vehemently forbids gossiping and backbiting. It clearly says that there is an offense against a Muslim’s honor that is worse than usury. When the prophet describes this heinous act, he uses analogous exaggeration with usury. He says, “إن من أربى الربا” because usury is a grave sin in Islam. However, the self-translator does not translate this Hadith into the TT; instead, he mentions another completely different Hadith by the prophet that categorically forbids backbiting and gossiping.

Ewes completely modifies the message of the Hadith. A back translation of the Arabic text “من يغتب أخاه المسلم أو أخته المسلمة لن يدخل الجنة“ قال الرسول, vividly shows this is a new Hadith that does not resemble the original in content or tone. The reason for this might be due to the self-translator’s inability to translate some words such as “أربى“”ربا” and “إستطالة” into English. As a result, he decides to modify the message by using another Hadith, which violates fidelity conditions. One of the correct translations of this Hadith is the prophet said: “The most prevalent kind of usury is going to lengths in talking unjustly against a Muslim’s honor.” (Sunnah.com, 2021).

Transparency

Valles (2012) explains that transparency is the extent to which a translation appears to a native speaker of the TL to have been initially written in that language. Similarly, Ajunwa (2015) contends that the ST and TT must be fundamentally equivalent for a layperson to be unable to tell them apart due to their similarity. Thus, to create a translation that faithfully represents the ST, the translator must use adequate strategies and carefully make decisions (Valles, 2012). According to Venuti (1995), a TT is acceptable when no foreign language is present, and the target audience can read the text smoothly and fluently without recognizing it is a translation. Venuti (1995) also demonstrates how a translator’s voice in the translation will be more visible to the reader if they opt for the foreignization strategy. This study reveals that the self-translator regularly depends on foreignizing religious jargon despite having an equivalent with the same function in the target language (TL).

Example 1:

لقد كان الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم يخطب على جذع نخله في المسجد.

The prophet used to do the Khutabah while standing on a tree trunk in the masjid.

(Rabi’Al-Awal w Thakeret Al-Islam 3, p.98. The Islamic history- Rabi‘ Al-Awwal 3, p.101)

This example demonstrates how the Prophet Muhammad was kind to all creatures of God, whether animate or inanimate. The Prophet used to deliver Friday sermons leaning on a palm tree trunk. One day, his companions built a pulpit close to the tree trunk so the Prophet could stand on it to preach his sermons. The companions heard sobbing from the tree trunk as the Prophet stood on the pulpit. Then, the Prophet would leave the pulpit and embrace the tree trunk until it stopped creaking.

Ewes foreignizes terms by using the transliteration technique in this example. Therefore, a TT reader will need help comprehending the text’s intended meaning. For example, in the TT, the word “خطبه,” which is “sermon,” is transliterated into English. He avoids foreignizing it and makes the text more comprehensive for the TT readers. As a result, the TT reader will be unable to read the text smoothly or understand it correctly. The author of the ST also states that the prophet once delivered some sermons in a mosque. However, he transliterated the word “مسجد” and did not translate into the TT even though it has a one-to-one equivalent in the TT, which has the same function in the target culture. Had the self-translator rendered it into “mosque,” he could have maintained the TT’s transparency.

Example 2:

أهم الوصايا التي وصى بها قبل موته هي الصلاة والمحافظة عليها

The most important things that the prophet highlighted before his death was the Salah.

(Rabi’Al-Awal w Thakeret Al-Islam 3, p.96. The Islamic history- Rabi‘ Al-Awwal 3, p.98)

This example reminds Muslims of the significance of upholding the five prayers, one of the most essential commandments from Prophet Mohammed. The ST demonstrates that the word “صلاة” is only transliterated and not translated into the TT. In the TL, the word “صلاة” has an equivalent term that signifies “prayer.” The TT would be easier to understand if Ewes translated the word “صلاة.” However, his decision to ignore the translation of these terms violates the notion of transparency, which could lead to an unfaithful translation and violate the tenets of fidelity.

Tonality

Ajunwa (2015) suggests that the tone of the ST must be rendered precisely in the TT. He demonstrates that the characteristics of an utterance that elicits emotions such as love, pleasure, fear, or violence should be rendered in the statements of both the ST and TT. For Claassen (1992), a text’s tone is how an author expresses their attitude about a subject, such as being angry, happy, serious, etc. As such, the tone, in this case, must be consistent across both texts.

Example 1:

الخمر والميسر وهما من الكبائر الموبقة في نظر الإسلام.

Allah has forbidden drinking wine and gambling.

(Al-Ikhwah, p.10. Brotherhood, p.13)

This example addresses the forbidden act of committing major sins such as drinking alcohol and gambling. In the ST, the author notes that gambling and drinking alcohol are prohibited in Islam and refers to them as “deadly vices,” meaning that committing these sins is a highly horrible deed.

We notice in the example above that the self-translator omits the phrase“الكبائر الموبقة” (deadly vices) in the TT, and he only says that “Allah has forbidden.” Reading the original language reveals, however, that committing these sins is a seriously grave matter in Islam and has dire consequences. The tone of the TT suggests that gambling and drinking alcohol are serious sins. However, the tone seems to be diminished when the term “the big sins” is omitted in the English translation, and it looks like Islam does not consider them serious issues for which a Muslim is held accountable. As a result, we can infer that the text’s impact on ST readers will be different from that of TT readers.

Example 2:

بكى أبو بكر الصديق بكاءً مراً

Abu Baker began to cry.

(Rabi’Al-Awal w Thakeret Al-Awaal. The Islamic history- Rabi‘ Al-Awwal 3, p.99)

This statement illustrates how the companions felt when they learned about Prophet Mohammed’s death. It talks explicitly about how Abu Bakr, the closest companion of the prophet, was deeply upset by the prophet’s death and how he wept uncontrollably while sitting next to the prophet’s body. Readers are greatly influenced by the Arabic language’s lyrical and aesthetically pleasing functions. In the example above, the phrase “بكاءً مراً” is used to metaphorically describe Abu Baker’s profound sadness following the prophet’s passing. To stress a verb’s meaning in Arabic, we use the absolute object, which derives from the same root as the verb. As a result, the object “مراً” confirms Abu Baker’s bitter crying and deep sorrow after learning of the prophet’s death.

Admissibility

Examples representing this specific criterion were not observed in the TT. It can be said that Ewes’s self-translation generally agrees with this particular aspect of fidelity.

Discussion

Based on the above findings, the self-translator, Ewes, was unfaithful in rendering the ST into the TT. He transferred some of the information inaccurately into the TT. For example, he incorrectly translated some data, such as figures and names, into the TT. This study also reveals that Ewes used his authority over the text several times. Notably, it is clear that language interference affected Ewes’s choices; that is, his mother tongue influenced his translation, making him more visible in the TT. This interference can be observed in the correctness, harmony, and transparency criteria. More importantly, Ewes’s background knowledge enticed him to make significant variations between the two manuscripts. This was explicitly apparent in the criterion of harmony, where the self-translator deleted, added, and modified large portions of the ST.

Furthermore, the findings related to harmony suggest that Ewes provided additional information that did not originally exist in the ST, relying on his extra knowledge of the topic. Bran (2016) and Zou (2016) state that self-translators often dispose of their original texts in a more unrestricted and discretionary way and produce alterations in their translations accordingly. These findings align with those of Jung (2002), who states that self-translators feel liberated to change the ST because when they translate, they have more access to some inter-textual materials, such as the written material that inspires their thinking. Venuti (1995) also suggests that deleted parts of translated texts may be eliminated intentionally to advance the translator’s objectives or due to the translator’s failure to identify their value. However, in both ways, deletion sometimes causes a loss in translation. Ewes also omitted parts of his text due to his failure to render the Arabic text’s characteristics and the meaning of some jargon, which might be ascribed to the self-translator’s limited competency in English or familiarity with translation strategies. One unexpected finding is that Ewes’s self-translation left a knowledge gap between the ST and the TT. The English version of the text needs to include the elements that make it understandable for the TT reader. The data show that the self-translator failed to follow English grammatical and writing rules.The self-translator presents a text with a great deal of confusion. Sometimes, the self-translator insists on foreignizing the text by transliterating specific terms, even when these terms have clear and direct equivalents in the TL. Therefore, his translation could not be considered accurate; the reproduction process interferes with the translation process, creating another version written in a different language. As a result, the translation becomes unfaithful and lacks transparency. When a cultural word in the SL lacks an equivalence in the TL, a translator can employ a transparency technique that involves transliteration (Newmark, 1988). However, sermon listeners are only sometimes well-educated enough to understand these concepts. This result is in line with Tekalp’s (2020) assertion that self-translators typically employ the foreignization approach since they rewrite their texts in other languages rather than translating them. According to Venuti (1995), the translator violates the dominant aesthetic of the TL culture by using the foreignization approach. Overall, the findings show that Ewes’s self-translation fell short of faithfulness and that he rewrote his work into a new version. Instead of translating the ST, he rewrote an original text. There is no doubt that the discrepancies between the two passages are apparent. This claim is in support of those made by Bassnett and Lefevere (1998), Jung (2002), Bran (2016), Zou (2016), and Al-Harahsheh and Al-Omari (2017) that self-translation is more akin to rewriting than translation.

Conclusions

This study shows that the self-translator failed to achieve fidelity in his translation. Specifically, by examining the factual accuracy of the self-translator, the study concludes that he used his authority over the text by conveying inaccurate information. Consequently, the TT contained information different from that of the ST. As far as correctness is concerned, the self-translator should have followed the grammatical rules of the TT, which resulted in numerous grammatical errors. Moreover, the evaluation of the harmony principle shows that Ewes omitted, added, and modified large portions of the ST. The assessment of the harmony criterion indicates that the self-translator improved some of the information in the ST using his extra knowledge, which led him to rewrite parts of the ST in another language.

Regarding evaluating the transparency and tonality of the TT, this study concludes that the self-translator chose to foreignize the TT, making it incomprehensible for TT readers. Therefore, the ST has a different effect on the original readers than the TT readers. This study also reveals that Ewes’s practice of self-translation of the Friday Sermons cannot be regarded as a true translation; he altered his original text more arbitrarily, causing variations between the ST and the TT. Finally, this study concludes that the self-translator’s lack of professional training in translation may have produced an unprofessional and unfaithful translation.