{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033297934294816894, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01517591038333733, 'mean_word_length': 4.761199921057825, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 5, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Translating Sarcasm as Glad Tidings and Threat in Some Verses of the Holy Quran Into English

The present study focuses on translating the rhetorical meanings of sarcasm in the Holy Quran and the translated texts in an attempt to find a kind of compatibility between the two languages. It sheds light on the method of sarcasm in some verses of Holy Quran in an attempt to understand its purpose, meaning and clarify the differences involved in its translation into the English language. The study aims to present some conceptions of sarcasm and take them into consideration in observing the original texts for the purpose of showing whether the translators are able to properly translate the implicit meanings of sarcasm, based on Newmark’s Model (1988), “semantic and communicative translation”. Qualitative analysis is appropriate for the purpose of the study, as it is suited for exploring people’s attitudes, opinions, beliefs, perceptions, interactions and behaviors in various settings and where the approach is interpretative and the data are presented subjectively rather than statistically The study hypothesizes that translating sarcasm leads to some potential problems for translators; one of the conclusions obtained from this study is the diversity of translations depending on the translator’s understanding of the meaning of the original text. The main findings that the translators have produced different translations depending on their understanding of the verse's meanings. In addition, in most cases, the renderings of the three translators sound appropriate (why) because they show the sarcastic function as it is in the (ST). So, the three translators in general success to express the intended ironical meaning as it is in the source text (The Holy Quran), and also, they manage to convey the sarcastic message implied.


Introduction
Sarcasm is defined as one of the considerable rhetorical devices used in literary and religious texts for criticism and to display the opposite of everything belonging to society by mocking. Since sarcasm is an element of social interaction among people, it has gained much ground in Arabic culture. Many of the most prominent Arab scholars dealt with sarcasm within their studies about different sciences of the Quran and rhetoric. Al-Jurjani (n.d) in (Asrar Al-Balagha) referred to sarcasm through his presentation of different kinds of rhetorical devices with relevance to the sciences of the Quran. He defines sarcasm as two contrary attributes where one of them is used to minimize the value of the opposite one. Interpreters have not given a one specific definition of sarcasm, but it could be deduced from their explanation of the verses in which sarcasm has been adopted. Thus, interpreters defined it using the opposites of utterances to mock and make fun of the addressee; and this is obvious in God's words like this verse below: Then announce to them a painful torment. (Al-Hilali and Khan: 1977, P.70). The word (tidings-‫)ثشبسح‬ indicates good, but here the word has been used in bad that is, it has been used to give the opposite meaning (Al-Fara`a: 1980, P.239). Al-Masri (1964:13) states that sarcasm may not be used in a purely linguistic sense; it may be used indirectly depending on the writer's intention. Some scholars regard sarcasm as a kind of metaphor. For instance, Al-Sakkaki (1983:293) suggests that sarcasm belongs to a special kind of metaphor (sarcastic metaphor), which means substituting one of the contrary features metaphorically by the other one. According to Al-Zamakhashari (1984:398), he expresses sarcasm indirectly through interpreting some verses of the Quran with reference to its signifying of opposite meaning to its literal meaning. So, he expressed sarcasm with reversing the meaning when he interpreted this verse: (Pharaoh) said: Surely your messenger, who is sent to you, is mad. (Maulana Muhammad Ali: 2002, P.733). In this verse, Al-Zamakhshari explained that how could they confess the revelation of the Quran into the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and at the same time accuse him of being mad!!! So, reversing the meaning here is for mockery purposes.
In general, sarcasm is a rhetorical device used in literary and religious texts to remark that people use it to say the opposite of what is true to criticize something by mocking. So, you are saying the opposite of what you mean (verbal irony) and doing it in a particular hostile tone. Sarcasm is made of the linguistic process in the form of insinuation that uses harsh words. So, the language of sarcasm comprises words that hurt people. Cudden (1979:338), stated that sarcasm can be defined as saying one thing and meaning another. On the other hand, Haiman (1988:20) who also declared that what is remarkable to sarcasm is that it is an intended overt irony used by the speaker as a form of verbal aggression. Mc Donald (1999: 486), suggests that sarcasm is an indirect form of speech utilized purposely to produce a specific effect on the listener as well as linking emotions and thoughts which are less aggressive from what is really International Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2021 www.macrothink.org/ijl 3 on one's mind. An identical idea is made by Toplak and Katz (2000:88), who announce that sarcasm is used to have some effect on listeners which differs from the direct supposition of the speaker in a way that the listeners are informed of the effect intended by the speaker.

Newmark's Theory of Translation
Peter Newmark (1916-2011, Waliński, J.T. (2014, was an English professor on translation at the University of Surrey. He was one of the main figures in the founding of translation studies. He defines the act of translating as transferring the meaning of a text from one language to another, taking care mainly of the functional relevant meaning. For him, theory of translation is neither theory nor science, but a huge group of knowledge. To fulfil the aims of the present study and verify its hypothesis, we adopt Newmark's Model (1988). Newmark's main contribution to general theory of translation was the introduction of the next concepts: First, semantic translation which attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the TL allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original; semantic translation emphasizes the loyalty to the original text. It tends to strive to reproduce the form of the original as closely as TL norms will allow; furthermore, no effort is made to shift SL into a target culture context. Greater attention is paid to rendering the author's original thought-processing in TL, rather than attempting to interpret SL in a way which the translators consider more appropriate for the target setting. Second, communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as closely as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. This means that in communicative translation the emphasis should be on conveying the message of the original in a form which conforms to linguistic, cultural and pragmatic conventions of TL rather than mirroring the actual words of SL as closely as possible without infringing the TL norms. So, when producing a communicative translation, the translator is permitted a greater freedom to interpret SL and will consequently smooth over irregular of the style and remove ambiguities.
Approaches to Translation (1981, Wang, M. (2014.) and A Textbook of Translation (1988) of Newmark have been widely used on translator training courses and combine a wealth of practical examples of linguistic theories of meaning with practical applications for translation. Newmark (1981:38) feels that the success of equivalent effect is illusory and that the conflict of loyalties, the gap between emphasis on source and target language, will always remain as the overriding problem in translation theory and practice. He suggests narrowing the gap by replacing the old terms within those of semantic and communicative translation. Communicative translation attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership. While semantic translation, on the other hand, attempts to render as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow; the exact contextual meaning of the original. So, it is obvious that communicative translation focuses on producing an equivalent effect on the target reader. On the contrary, semantic translation remains within the original culture at the author's linguistic level". This description of communicative translation resembles Nida's dynamic equivalence in the effect it is trying to create on the TT reader, while semantic translation has similarities to Nida's formal equivalence. However, Newmark distances himself from the full principle of equivalent effect, since that effect is in operant if the text is out of the TL space and time (P.69). Newmark indicates that semantic translation differs from literal translation in that the later means word for word in its extreme version and even in its weaker form, sticks very closely to ST lexis and syntax. Importantly, as long as equivalent effect is achieved, Newmark holds literal translation to be the best approach. However, if there is a conflict between the two forms of translation (if semantic translation would result in an abnormal TT or would not secure equivalent effect in the TL) then communicative translation should be preferred. In this regard, communicative and semantic translation may well coincide in particular; where the text conveys a general rather than a culturally (temporally and spatially) bound message and where the matter is as important as the manner. So, there is no one communicative or one semantic method of translating a text, these are in fact widely overlapping bands of methods. A translation can be more or less semantic, more or less communicative, even a particular section or sentence can be treated more communicatively or less semantically. Newmark (1988:5, Wang, M. (2014. suggests that translation is rendering the meaning of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text. The word, author in the case of the Holy Quran makes a difficulty and a barrier for the translator to stop and think many times before selecting even one single word. In fact, he is dealing with a marvel which stands as is in any other language till the Judgement Day. Newmark proposes that understanding the text requires general and close reading. To grasp the intentional meaning of the Holy Quran, the translator should read the verses in the original language many times. The general reading can be achieved through reading different exegesis of the Holy Quran, critical papers and illustrative analytical essays regarding specific topics that the text tackles. Such topics are society, culture, ethics, faith, heaven, hell, etc. The close reading, on the other hand, requires an extensive research for the use of a text inside the original text. The translator's duty here is to look for places where figurative language is used, he or she should also find out the multiple functions and additional meanings one word might indicate to. In fact, there is no single word that comes by chance in the Glorious Quran (Al-Malik: 1995, P.17).

Translation of the Holy Quran
According to Aziz and Lataiwish (2000:110), claimed that although translations of the Quran may be helpful, yet they are unable to attain the actual meaning of the Quran because both the message and the words expressing the message are divine. In translating such words into other words, this will make a loss in their divine value and consequently the message will lose it's real meaning too. Al-Buti (2003), on the other hand, asserts that the translating of the Quranic verses presents literal rendering which distort the implicit meanings of the verses; this can be illustrated in the example below: And let not your hand be tied (like a miser) to your neck, nor stretch it for forth to its almost reach (like a spendthrift), so that you become blameworthy and in serving poverty. (Al-Hilali International Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2021 www.macrothink.org/ijl 5 and Khan: 1977, P.372). In the above verse, the words do not indicate to the actual meaning, and as such, the translator should have a profound understanding of the Quranic and Islamic jurisprudence to translate them. Since the Quran is a unique book, it is better to convey the meanings and the message of the Quranic verses rather than focusing on the rendering of single words which may have no equivalent in the other language. In this regard, Bell (1991:207) states that to convey the meaning and the force of the message of religious text from SL into TL, the translator should have wide information of all linguistic aspects in both languages.

Elements of Sarcasm in the Holy Quran
The technique of sarcasm in the Quran is based on the following elements: The mocker is the one who comes out of the word intended to be sarcastic, the culprit is the one who is taunted and is intended, the material of sarcasm which is the characteristic or the cause on which sarcasm is built and the form of sarcasm. So, the images of this technique in the Holy Quran are diversified; consequently, the elements of sarcasm change as it has been said by more than one side: Allah or one of His Prophets on the one hand; and the opposing side, (disbelievers and hypocrites) on the other hand.
When Allah is the mocker, then the mocks are: First; if the mocks are the disbelievers and polytheists, then the signification is either relating a son to Allah or offending the honorable angels, claiming divinity, rejecting blessings, ignorance and short sightedness, and one of the verses mentioned in this field is the Almighty's saying: And they have made the angels, who are themselves servants of the All-Merciful, females. What, did they witness their creation? Their witness shall be written down, and they shall be questioned (Arberry: 1955, P.490).
Second; if the mocks are the hypocrites, then the meaning is enmity to the prophet or hypocrisy or claiming loving the believers or cowardice, an example of this is in the Almighty's saying: Give to the hypocrites the tidings that there is for them a painful torment (Al-Hilali and Khan: 1977, P.133).
But when fear comes, thou wilt see them looking to thee, their eyes rolling like one swooning because of death (Maulana Muhammad Ali: 2002, P.828).
Third; if the mocks are some Muslims, then the tenor is disobeying orders and prohibitions, miserliness, hoarding money, inherited pre-Islamic traditions etc. and one if the verses mentioned in this field are: International Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2021 www.macrothink.org/ijl Those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not expend them in the way of God-give them the good tidings of a painful chastisement (Arberry: 1955, P.192).
When the mocker is one of the Prophets, then the mocks are his folk and followers for worshipping other than Allah; such as when Prophet Ibrahim ridiculed and jeered his folk for worshipping idols as we mentioned before, and when Prophet Noah derided his folk's ignorance: He said: if you mock at us, so do we mock at you likewise for your mocking (Al-Hilali and Khan: 1977, P.291). That is, you consider me ignorant, so I will do the same to you when punishment and torture come onto you (Al-Baghwi: 1987, P.383).
When the mockers are the infidels and polytheists, then the mocks are often the Prophets especially the Prophet Muhammad or the believers. They jeer the Prophet's prophecy or revealing Quran onto Him or Allah's speech and His religion's law or resurrection: And they say: O thou to whom the Reminders is revealed, thou art indeed mad (Maulana Muhammad Ali: 2002, P.524).
The form of sarcasm is determined by the context and the situation. A variety of modes has been proposed to account for sarcasm depending on various contexts in which this term occurs. Most of modes which describe sarcasm are limited within syntax. A clear explanation of these modes is made by Ananza (2005:556-557), following is a brief survey of some of these modes with examples: Taste you (this)! Verily, you were (pretending to be) the mighty, the generous! (Al-Hilali and Khan: 1977, P.674). The imperative ‫)رق(‬ is used here ironically to indicate to the opposite meaning of ‫اٌىش٠ُ(‬ ‫.)اٌعر٠ر‬

B / Interrogative Mood
Is this he whom Allah has raised to be a Messenger? (Maulana Muhammad Ali: 2002, P.723). ‫أ(‬ ) is used here sarcastically against the Prophet for scoffing.

C / Demonstrative Mood
They also say, what ails this Messenger that he eats food (Arberry: 1955, P.360). ‫)٘زا(‬ is used here sarcastically for the sake of mocking. ISSN 1948-5425 2021

International Journal of Linguistics
And they say: "O you (Mohammad) to whom the Dhikr (The Quran) has been sent down! Verily, you are a mad man!" (Al-Hilali and Khan: 1977, P.338). The relative pronoun ‫)اٌزٞ(‬ is irony employed here to mock against the Prophet. E / Restriction Mood: And when our clear messages are recited to them, their only argument is that they say: Bring (back) our fathers; if you are truthful (Maulana Muhammad Ali: 2002, P.976). Here, the irony ‫)إَل(‬ is used against the disbelievers for their foolish. And when they said, O God, if this be indeed the truth from Thee, then rain down upon us stones out of heaven (Arberry: 1955, P.180). Conditional mood is used here for the purpose of sarcasm to denote to the obduracy of the disbelievers.

Method of the Study
This research tackles the translating of sarcasm in the Holy Quran in Arabic as the source language (SL) and English as the target language (TL). The study is based on a qualitative research design examining the translation of sarcasm in the Holy Quran. The Holy Quran is the text we chose to be the subject of the study (the pragmatic functions of sarcasm are explained with a number of verses that have been selected from random Surahs of the Holy Quran) in addition to three chosen English translations of the same text. The three translations are: (T1) Muhammad Ali (2002), (T2) Hilali & Khan (1977) and (T3) Arberry (1955). The translations are compared first with the source text and then with each other to find out which one is the best to render the same meaning and functions as intended in the source text. The three translations are analyzed and assessed according to Newmark's Model (1988) semantic and communicative translation. We focus on areas of success and others of failure when translating sarcasm from Arabic into English. In some cases, when the translators are unable to produce an appropriate translation, we suggest a rendition to indicate the intended ironical meaning and to convey the sarcastic message implied. Regarding the choice of examples, a number of verses that comprise sarcasm were chosen from the Glorious Quran for the purpose of the study. Under each verse, the three translations of the same verse are explained and compared.

Results
The study has come up with the following main findings that the translators have produced different translations depending on their understanding of the verse's meanings. The three translators retain to communicative approach in rendering the verses of the Quran most of times and used overindulgence of synonymous for explaining the meaning of words and to International Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2021 www.macrothink.org/ijl 8 transfer the "force" of sarcastic expressions. In most cases, the renderings of the three translators sound appropriate (why) because they managed to show the sarcastic function as it is in the source text (ST). So, the three translators in general succeed to express the intended ironical meaning as it is in the source text (The Holy Quran), and they successfully achieve to convey the sarcastic message implied.    This table shows the percentage of achieving semantic and communicative renditions of the selected verses. As we see, the frequency of communicative translation is higher than semantic International Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2021 www.macrothink.org/ijl 9 one. The translators tend to use communicative method in most of their translations to render the meaning of the verses of the original.

Discussion
After giving a suitable description of sarcasm, exploring and investigating its meaning in Arabic. Now, the focus is about the translating of sarcasm in the Holy Quran in Arabic as the source language and English as the target language. The Holy Quran is the text we chose to be the subject of the study (the pragmatic functions of sarcasm are explained with a number of verses that have been selected from random Surahs of the Holy Quran) in addition to three chosen English translations of the same text. The three translations are: (T1) Muhammad Ali (2002), (T2) Hilali & Khan (1977) and (T3) Arberry (1955). The translations are compared first with the source text and then with each other to find out which one is the best to render the same meaning and functions as intended in the source text. The three translations are analyzed and assessed according to Newmark's Model (1988, Wang, M. (2014, semantic and communicative translation. We focus on areas of success and others of failure when translating sarcasm from Arabic into English. In some cases, when the translators are unable to produce an appropriate translation, we suggest a rendition to indicate the intended ironical meaning and to convey the sarcastic message implied. TT (1): Those who disbelieve in the messages of Allah and would slay the prophets unjustly and slay those among men who enjoin justice, announce to them a painful chastisement. TT (2): Verily! Those who disbelieve in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah and kill the prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, then announce to them a painful torment. (Al-Hilali & Khan: 1977, P. 70).
TT (3): Those who disbelieve in the signs of God and slay the Prophets without right, and slay such men as bid to justice-do thou give them the good tidings of a painful chastisement; (Arberry: 1955, P. 52).
In this verse, sarcasm lies in using the word ‫‪-good‬ثشبسح(‬ tidings) in place of warning or threat, which is unusual for the word refers to everything that pleases. What joy and pleasure will disbelievers and hypocrites get as the word implies painful torture? The word has been used not in the right position because it implies the good and pleasure but Allah meant to mock these infidels and hypocrites by warning them in an unusual way to rebuke and scold them their great sins, uncover their hypocrisy and insincerity, and cause confusion to believers.
Being disbelievers inside, they claimed faith and deserved punishment in a way similar to their deeds. Allah used a word that apparently indicates mercy, but deep inside, it demanded punishment and torture (Lashin, A.:1985, P.179-180). In this verse, Allah has adopted two contradictory terms: ‫أٌ١ُ(‬ ‫ثعزاة‬ ‫.)فجششُ٘‬ The word (ٜ‫-اٌجشش‬glad tidings) has been used altogether with ‫أٌ١ُ(‬ ‫-عزاة‬painful torment or chastisement!). It is a very beautiful sarcastic image jeering International Journal of Linguistics ISSN 1948-5425 2021 the polytheists. Allah has no said: warn or threaten them with a painful chastisement; rather He has put it in an ironical way in order to ridicule and scoff the unbelievers. Muhammad Ali & Al-Hilali could not portray the functional effect of this Aya, so their renditions are more semantic than communicative. Arberry, on the other hand, has succeeded in expressing the sarcastic metaphor implied: give the good tidings of a painful chastisement, so his rendition is communicative one.
ST (2): TT (1): Do those who disbelieve think that they can take My servants to be friends besides Me? Surely, we have prepared hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers. (Muhammad Ali: 2002, P. 611).
TT (3): What, do the unbelievers reckon that they may take My servants as friends, apart from Me? We have prepared Gehenna for the unbeliever's hospitality. (Arberry: 1955, P. 304).
Sarcasm in this verse is by using words of glad tidings in place of threat. Allah has described the hell with all the torture and Zaqqum as home or shelter! It is just metaphor; it is unreasonable that Allah promises unbelievers good hospitality. Ibn Ashour says that it is a sarcastic metaphor to call torture in hell as home; as if Allah has promised unbelievers something to entertain when they go to hell, which is only mocker for their miscalculations (Al-Qasimy, J.:1994, P.13). More sarcasm is in this verse ‫حّ١ُ(‬ ِٓ ‫)فٕري‬ (for him is entertainment of boiling water). If boiling water was the first thing they get, what next, they get after they settle down in hell! Allah disregards their minds for when He mentions home or shelter; He misleads them that they will have a home of hospitality and honoring, but soon this will vanish and they get disappointed to find a home different from their homes in the world; it is a day of boiling water and poisonous food (Al-Khafaji, S.:1997, P.398). The three translators have successfully expressed the image of sarcasm. Ali used the word "hell" for ‫)جُٕٙ(‬ and "entertainment" for ‫,)ٔرَل(‬ but he had better if he had stressed the two words by putting them in capital letter in order to give a hint to the reader that there is an irony here as did Hilali & Khan "Hell", and Arberry "Gehenna". So, we think that the three translators have tried their best to produce an effective rendition for this Aya. We would recommend this rendition: [We have prepared Hell for the Unbelievers for (their) Entertainment].
The above verse expresses the pragmatic function of sarcasm that is scorn and disdain. The speaker here orders the hearer to perform the action figuratively since the aim is to disdain him. This verse has an occasion in that God (the speaker) is addressing one specific unbeliever who is (Abu Jahl). Al-Qurtubi (2005) suggests that Abu Jahl used to describe himself in life as the mightiest and the most honorable man on earth. The Divine verse comes as a reply for his words. God is addressing him in a very sarcastic language using the same characteristics with the same expressions he claims for himself in life. God orders him to taste torture, to taste the loss of dignity and honor and to taste the loss of mighty. It is time to pay the price for all the secular arrogance he used to be proud of.
The above Aya complete the meaning of the verse ‫اٌىش٠ُ(‬ ‫اٌعر٠ر‬ ‫أٔذ‬ ‫إٔه‬ ‫.)رق‬ The irony here is very clear; Allah is scorning him by saying: [(A voice will cry) Seize ye him and drag him into the midst of the Blazing fire. Then pour over his head the penalty of boiling water. Taste thou (this)! Truly wast thou mighty, full of honor!]. Allah is punishing him for his pride and arrogance with fire and boiling water, as if telling him: this is what you get for believing that you are great and untouchable! Ali and Hilali have expressed the irony by adding an exclamation mark as a sign that indicates the contradiction and disdain. Arberry, on the other hand, put it in a very normal way which does not express the sarcasm intended. Thus, we think that Ali and Hilali succeeded in transferring the sarcastic message implied and their renditions could be closer to communicative, compared with Arberry who has produced semantic translation.

Conclusion
The present study revealed that translating sarcasm in the Quran needs to transfer its intentional meaning and its exact sarcastic function as it is in the ST to preserve the effect created by sarcasm. This matter is not an easy mission because the Quran is a divine book related to Allah and it is hard to be submitted to alterations made by human interference. Consequently, misunderstanding of sarcastic expression that may cause mistranslating of sarcasm. As well as, footnotes are also needed in some cases to enable the reader to understand the verses.
Consequently, the importance of the present study is to help translators to be able to recognize a sarcasm function and type. Understanding the sarcasm function and type in the source language helps translators to decide on the right strategy to solve these problems. In other words, it may assist translators to know of any change in the sarcasm function and type during the process of translation that leads to deviate the meaning of the sarcasm and type that affects its using in the society.
Based on the outcomes of this study and the stated limitations and recommendations made for future research, this study proposes some recommendation for further investigations of comparable areas related to the translation of the sarcasm function and type. Future studies should focus on the translation of sarcasm function and type from English into Arabic grammatically. Additionally, the recommended topic could be examined syntactically as a contrastive study between English and Arabic.