We study these texts not as a scholar on the Islamic or Koranic studies but as a linguist. These texts contain very important elements of the history of Turkic languages. In other words, for us, turkologs, from the point of view of comparative-historical grammar, these unique sources (translations of the Koran) are most convincing.
The problem of translation of the Koran became a subject of fierce discussions among Muslim scientists.
By the 10th–11th centuries, there was a situation when non-Arab Muslims began to give less attention to the knowledge of the Arabic language or did not consider it necessary to study it at all in connection with the falling power and influence of the Caliphate. There was an imperative need of translations of the Sacred Book, comments to it in clear languages.
Let’s remind that the first recorded translation into the Persian language of the comment is considered to be the one which was carried out by a group of scientists-theologians on the command of Mansur I (350–366/961–976), the Samanid ruler of Khorasan and Transoxiana, the text “Tafsir” of al-Tabari.
Based on this decision, Mansur b. Noah gathered all the famous theologians of Bukhara, Samarkand, Balkh, Fergana and other places and chose those most educated and knowledgeable to create the translation.
As we have already noted, for the first time the Koran was translated into Farcy in the first half of the 4th century on a calendar “hijri” on the initiative of Transoxiana’s scientists. The same scientists translated the Koran also into the ancient Turkic language. Thus, the translation of the Koran into Farcy and ancient Turkic was carried out either at the same time or with a small gap in time.
It is very curious that almost at the same time with the falling of the translational tradition in Anatolia, there was an interlinear translation of the Koran into Slavic languages. It is possible to assume that the influence of the cultural space Anatolia (i.e. Ottoman-Turkic) could get to the East European territory by means of the Tatar people after disintegration of the tradition of interlinear translations in Anatolia.
There are a lot of questions concerning the degree and intensity of communications between Anatolia and Eastern Europe. Could Anatolia be a source of this interlinear method? To learn the truth, it is necessary to answer the following questions:
1. First, it is necessary to compare works from the point of view of transfer equipment and then to establish the degree and intensity of influence. We know that the source of the first Turkic translations was Persian; and what language was the source of Slavic translations?
2. Are there similarities between errors of translation in Turkic and Slavic texts?
3. Can we in Slavic translations find any traces of sects of Islamic origin, and do these traces coincide with similar Turkic texts? Sunni or Shia? Then we can learn about the source of translation into a Slavic language. If there are any traces of a sect, the hypotheses “translate directly from the Arab” (P. Suter) will be unreasonable.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
