PROF Reynold A. Nicholson (1868-1945) was an orientalist. A renowned scholar and professor of Arabic and Persian at Cambridge University, Nicholson is held in high esteem for his works on Islamic mysticism and literatures of Arabic and Persian.
In addition to Rumi’s Masnavi, Nicholson’s monumental work that he is best known for, he has also translated into English some other very important Persian works, such as Kashf-al-mahjoob (also spelt Kashf-ul-mahjoob) and Asrar-i-khudi. While Asrar-i-khudi is a poetic work by Allama Iqbal, a student of Nicholson’s, Kashf-al-mahjoob is known as the oldest and one of the most revered treatises in Persian on Islamic Sufism. It was penned by Ali Bin Usman Hajveri (also spelt Hujwiri), a renowned Muslim Sufi of the 11th century AD from Ghazni, Afghanistan. Popularly known as Data Ganj Bakhsh, Sheikh Ali Hajveri came to Lahore in the later years of his life and his shrine is in Lahore.
Aside from a number of Urdu translations of Kashf-al-mahjoob, in Urdu there have been few, if any, scholarly evaluations of Nicholson’s translation of Kashf-al-mahjoob in recent times. One of the hindrances to such a scholarly endeavour is that unless one is able to compare the original Persian work with the English translation, an honest comparison and critical review of the translation is not possible. Since Prof Dr Tehseen Firaqi is well-versed in both Persian and English and has honed his skills in Persian during his long stay at Tehran University, his evaluation of Nicholson’s translation of Kashf-al-mahjoob is simply gripping.
In one of his articles included in his new book Nikaat: tanqeedi mazaameen, Tehseen Firaqi has compared the original Persian text of Kashf-al-mahjoob with Nicholson’s English translation in a scholarly manner, meticulously sifting through some other versions and manuscripts of the original Persian text. While Firaqi is generally satisfied with Nicholson’s translation and at time praises it quite generously, he has some reservations too at several occasions. For instance, he does not agree with Nicholson’s use of the word ‘temple’ in his translation for ‘Ka’aba’, though the translation of the relevant chapter that describes the logic and real aim behind Haj, and other chapters too, is quite satisfactory. Still, at an occasion or two, says Firaqi, Nicholson has not been able to grasp the real meaning behind what is said in the original Persian text. One such portion is where Sheikh Ali Hajveri refers to the company of some “uncongenial” fellows that he had to bear with. Sheikh describes it in a metaphor, using the word ‘giriftaar’, which literally means “arrested”. Shiekh Hajveri wrote “darmiyaan-i-na jinsaan girftaar shude boodam”. But Nicholson takes the metaphor literally and instead of calling it “detained or seized” among the uncongenial fellows, he writes that Ali Hajveri “had become captive” and “was taken there [to Lahore] as a prisoner”. According to Firaqi, Sheikh Hajveri was never taken prisoner. Aside from such few lapses, Firaqi thinks it is quite a satisfactory translation and proves not only Nicholson’s command over Persian, but over the concepts of Islamic teachings and terms used in Islamic mysticism, albeit he says that the Arabic word ‘faqr’ too has not been translated correctly, Firaqi thinks ‘faqr’ should not be translated at all. Well, it is one of those untranslatable words that have always bothered the scholars!
But the book, published by Lahore’s Majlis-i-Taraqqi-i-Adab, contains some all-important articles on Persian and Urdu languages and literatures. It has been divided into four sections and the first one includes articles on Persian language and literature and Pakistan and Iran’s common cultural and linguistic roots. The second portion critically views and reviews some aspects of literary works by or some scholars. The third one is on our fiction and raises some sharp questions as to the standard of our modern fiction and the current situation. He thinks the towering figures of Urdu fiction, such as Qurratul Ain Hyder and Intizar Hussain, are no more and have left behind a vacuum that does not seem to be filled in near future. The last part discusses two books; one of them is by Azmatullah Khan’s famous critique of Urdu ghazal and Urdu prosody. Firaqi, while appreciating an aspect of Khan’s book, criticises him for his flawed ideas about Urdu ghazal and prosody. The last article reviews the Urdu translation of Fuat Sezgin’s book by Dr Khursheed Rizvi, appreciating the commendable work.
Tehseen Firaqi had been writing for quite long but it was his article on Urdu criticism published in the second issue of Takhleeqi adab (1980), a literary magazine published from Karachi by Mushfiq Khwaja, that made him shine. The literary circles began to realise that there had emerged a new, incisive critic to reckon with. That article of Firaqi on Urdu criticism proved that he had a discerning mind and an acute insight that emerges only after a hugely vast reading. Ever since then, Firaqi has never looked back and has climbed one higher peak after another.
Tehseen Firaqi’s latest book has simply strengthened his status as being among one of the leading critics and scholars of Urdu today.
Published in Dawn, March 11th, 2019
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.