Self-Translation: A Faithful Rendition or a Rewriting Process? Haikal’s Autumn of Fury as an Example

This study aims to investigate if self-translation is a true interpretation of a Source Text (ST) into a Target Text (TT), or if it is in fact a rewriting process. The study examines Haikal’s self-translation of a book titled ‘Autumn of Fury: The Assassination of Sadat’. This self-translation is used as an example due to the modifications and changes made by Haikal, and examines to what extent the translator is faithful to his ST (English version). For the purpose of this study, fifteen examples have been selected from Haikal's version of Autumn of Fury. They are then analysed and compared to their Arabic translations (TT), and the differences are highlighted and discussed. The selected examples include words, phrases, sentences, and sometimes whole paragraphs. The study relies on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a theoretical framework to uncover the hidden ideologies and attitudes behind the modification, manipulation, or rewriting of the ST into Arabic. These examples are analysed from linguistic, political and ideological perspectives. The study finds that Haikal’s self-translation of Autumn of Fury into Arabic was actually a rewriting process rather than a translation process, and that a new book is almost recreated out of the original.


INTRODUCTION
The practice of self-translation was common in the late Middle Ages and in early modern Europe, focusing mainly on bridging Latin and the vernaculars (Roscoff 2015). Selftranslation was completely neglected within translation studies until it came to the attention of the cultural elites with the appearance of monolingualism and multilingualism. Popovič (1976, p. 19) was the first theorist to define self-translation as "the translation of an original work into another language by the author himself." In the same vein, Grutman (1998) recognises this phenomenon, and coined a different term (auto-translation) for the same practice. Self-translation, or auto-translation, first appeared in the early sixteenth century in Europe, where it was very common for poets to translate their own Latin texts into vernaculars to enrich their works (Grutman 1998). Grutman (1998, p.17) defines auto-translation as "the act of translating one's own writings, or the result of such of an undertaking." The study of self-translation focused mainly on a few bilingual migrant self-translators, such as Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov and Joseph Brodsky. Nowadays, the practice of self-translation is more widely researched within translation studies (Grutman 1998).
Another definition of self-translation is provided by Whyte (2002, p.64) as the process whereby "the author of a literary text completed in one language subsequently reproduces it in a second language." However, Bandin (2015) criticises Whyte's definition, BACKGROUND Hokenson and Munson (2007, p.1) argue that self-translation was generally neglected in the West, especially during the Renaissance period; they mention two reasons for this negligence. Firstly, the keepers of the 'canon' were against any linguistic intervention because they were mindful of the "linguistic purity of its foundational figures, such as Chaucer and Dante", therefore they routinely resisted any translation of their works into foreign languages. The second reason lies in the fact that, when translated, the original versions seem to vanish within the bilingual text. Therefore, "the specific ways in which bilinguals rewrite a text in the second language and adapt it to a different sign system laden with its own literary and philosophical traditions, escapes the categories of text theory, for the text is twinned" (Hokenson and Munson 2007, p. 2). They (ibid, p. 41) state that "by the fourteenth century [...], the bilingual text plays an ever more crucial role in a widening range of increasingly secularised intellectual domains previously dominated by Latin." In brief, Hokenson and Munson (2007, p. 206) illustrate that when authors translate themselves, "they make changes that seem almost always to arise from the need, the desire, or the delightful occasion to re-address the text to a new audience." Petrucă (2013) defines self-translation as a creative form of translation that, in some respects, is different from the normal act of translation, and she goes on to describe a selftranslator as an author who has the opportunity to make changes to their work during translation in order to revise and improve the material. Petrucă (2013, p. 759) discusses many reasons that lead authors to self-translate their works. For example, she argues that "wars or other conflicts" require some writers to leave their home countries and settle in new countries, where eventually they "acquired a new language, a new different culture and, in the end, they started to write in that language." Another reason cited is that some writers were angered and "not satisfied" with the interpretation of their works by other translators. Petrucă (2013, p. 760) also mentions that some writers self-translate their own works "simply because they know another language", and they are keen to improve their bilingualism or multilingualism. Petrucă (2013, p. 760) also differentiates between two main types of self-translation, the first being consecutive translation, which takes place after the writer finishes their original work and subsequently decides to translate it or "write it" in one or more language(s). The second is simultaneous translation, when "the author/self-translator writes both versions in the same time." Petrucă (2013, p. 761) provides an analysis of how opponents and proponents of self-translation recognise it as such. She describes how opponents claim that the author (for ambiguous reasons) are unqualified to render what they write into another language. On the other hand, those theorists who encourage selftranslation claim that "the writer is the best translator, he is knowing the best what he wants to transmit to the readers." SELF-TRANSLATION VS. BILINGUALISM Some theorists, such as Bassnett (2013), De Roubaix (2012), and Bran (2016, claim that it is extremely difficult to pinpoint exactly where the distinction lies, (if indeed any exists), between the 'self-translators' and the 'bilingual writers. ' Grutman (2009, p. 257), as cited in (De Roubaix, 2012), illustrates that self-translation encompasses the practice and product of "translating one's own writings into another language." The author writes the original ST work, then translates it into the TT in order to popularise the TT version. Bandin (2015, p. 37) states that there is a strong relationship between self-translation and the notions of bilingualism and biculturalism, and that self-translation cannot be analysed in isolation, but in relation to concepts of "language, culture and society." She also links self-translation to the concepts of "identity and hybridization", identifying writertranslators as bilingual due to their "bilingual identity." Hokenson and Munson (2007, p. 12) propose that the self-translator is best defined as a "bilingual writer who authors texts in one language and then translates them into the other." They further explicate that there is a degree of 'fuzziness' in deciding which language is the "original or first composition, but in all cases the texts are the creations of the same writer" (2007, p.12). Explaining the role of "bilingual writers", Hokenson and Munson (2007, p.14) define them as "authors who compose texts in at least two different languages", and draw their distinction between bilingual texts and self-translations as: Self-translators are idiomatic bilingual writers who have two literary languages: they compose texts in both languages, and they translate their texts between those languages. Thus the bilingual text refers to the self-translated text, existing in two languages and usually in two physical versions, with overlapping content. (Hokenson & Munson 2007, p. 4) Bilingualism can be the reason and motive behind self-translation, and this is especially the case with Haikal's translation of Autumn of Fury. Haikal (1983) indicated that he self-translated his book because he would like to transfer the exact intended meaning of the ST. He explained that translators who had interpreted his previous works had not adequately rendered the messages encompassed in these books. Therefore, Haikal insisted on self-translating Autumn of Fury to distance himself from critics (i.e. his disagreements with Anwar Sadat).

METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This study consists of fifteen randomly selected examples from the English version of Autumn of Fury, which are compared with the corresponding Arabic translation, Khareef Alghadab. There are many examples that could have been selected but, for the purpose of the study, fifteen representative examples have been chosen. The sample texts are analysed to investigate how Haikal self-translates, then the differences between each English example and its Arabic equivalent are examined. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is employed in the discussion, and the examples are evaluated from a linguistic, political, and ideological perspective. CDA refers to an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse that uses language as a social practice. According to Van Djik (1993, p. 131), CDA is not "a homogenous model" nor a paradigm, but it is "a shared perspective on doing linguistics, semiotic or discourse analysis." CDA indicates that language users do not interact in isolation, but in a group of social, cultural, historical, and psychological contexts. It also studies the connections and interactions of "social structures" in a society. In addition, CDA plays a pivotal role in improving the understanding of texts, and it can be used to assess the quality and the product of translation (Al-Harahsheh 2013). According to Lande (2010, p. 4), in translation studies "certain aspects of CDA have been applied to analyse the ideological motivations behind translators' text-linguistic choices in the TT, and the translator's role in the interpretation process of the intended meaning of the ST and the production of a new TT." The use of CDA in the translation process relies on the analysis of the social, historical, cultural and linguistic features of the text to uncover the hidden ideologies behinds the ST and TT meaning. Therefore, in this study the ST and the TT are analysed with particular reference to these elements in order to generate a clear understanding of what changes, manipulations, or modifications have been made in the TT (Al-Harahsheh 2013). The target readers of the ST (English version) of Autumn of Fury were Westerners, and the TT (Arabic version) were Arabs, Egyptians in particular. Therefore, there are some expressions and words that have been manipulated to be more acceptable in the TT culture. Lefevere (1992) explains that when the linguistic consideration conflicts with the ideological one, the ideological one will prevail. Therefore, ideology plays an essential role in translation as it influences the translator's choice of words.

DISCUSSION
After reviewing the data, it was observed that Haikal manipulated the meaning of words or expressions in both versions (Arabic and English) for ideological reasons. This study investigates the elements of self-translation in relation to the author's bilingualism; whether his self-translation is a true and faithful verbatim translation, or a rewritten work. The most recurrent strategies and liberties -Addition, Omission and Rewriting -that Haikal applied in his self-translated version of Autumn of Fury study are examined, revealing that the translated work has been transformed into a new version, different from the original ST. CDA is used to analyse and discuss the following examples, focusing on the linguistic, political and ideological perspectives together, as these perspectives cannot be divorced and they can all appear in one example. The CDA analysis also focuses on these perspectives together to uncover the hidden ideology or manipulation that was used in the ST.
(1) ST: "Muslim Fundamentalism" :TT ‫السياسي"‬ ‫"اإلسالم‬ In Example 1, Haikal's translation of this concept in Arabic was not equivalent to the ST "Fundamentalism", which means "the belief in the original form of a religion or theory, without accepting any later ideas"(Collins Dictionary 1994). Instead of translating "Muslim Fundamentalism" based on its real meaning and reference‫األصولي‬ ‫,اإلسالم‬ Haikal rendered the same term into Arabic, referring to issues arising in the Arab world, particularly in Egypt as: ‫ّاسي"‬ ‫السي‬ ‫."اإلسالم‬ It seems that Haikal mitigated the original meaning of this term to avoid accusations by some Islamic parties in Egypt, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, since the literal translation of "Muslim Fundamentalism" ‫ّة‬ ‫االسالمي‬ ‫"األصولية‬ " or ‫المتطرف"‬ ‫"االسالم‬ is completely inadequate, not only in Egypt but also in the Arab World, where it can be interpreted as a criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, Haikal manipulated the translation of the above concept and substituted it with a neutral one ‫السياسي"‬ ‫,"االسالم‬ which is more acceptable in the TT culture. The translator should select "appropriate strategy that results in translation techniques with good accuracy and acceptability" (Ardi et al.,2018, p.191).
(2) ST: "This particular organisation specialised in assassinating British soldiers in and around Cairo, usually when drunk and on their own." (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p. 20) :TT ‫وحولها‬ ‫القاهرة‬ ‫في‬ ‫البريطانيين‬ ‫الجنود‬ ‫ضد‬ ‫بها‬ ‫تقوم‬ ‫اغتيال‬ ‫لعمليات‬ ‫نفسها‬ ‫نذرت‬ ‫قد‬ ‫السرية‬ ‫الجمعية‬ ‫هذه‬ ‫"كانت‬ ، ‫ّبا‬ ‫الش‬ ‫هؤالء‬ ‫ر‬ ّ ‫تصو‬ ‫وكان‬ ‫المشروع‬ ّ ‫الوطني‬ ‫الكفاح‬ ‫أعمال‬ ‫من‬ ‫عمل‬ ‫الجنود‬ ‫هؤالء‬ ‫قتل‬ ‫أن‬ ‫ب‬ ( " p.54 .) Example 2 is rewritten and manipulated to add a new ideology. In the ST, Haikal described the organisation as "particular", but he rendered it in Arabic as (secret)"‫."السرية‬ Also, in the ST he mentioned that the British soldiers were usually "drunk and on their own" when they were assassinated by members of that organisation. However, the Arabic translation states that the killing of those soldiers was, according to the youth, a legitimised act in light of the national struggle. This interpretation is not acceptable in the ST culture, but it is favourable in the TT culture. Therefore, information that carries ideology has been avoided in the ST but is highlighted clearly in the TT as they are culturally and socially acceptable.
(3) ST: "He flew to Washington where a special plane belonging to a friend was put at his disposal and he was flown back to Cairo" (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p. 262) : TT " ‫و‬ ‫ه‬ ‫القاهرة"‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫تحمله‬ ‫ّة‬ ‫خاص‬ ‫طائرة‬ ‫باستئجار‬ ‫األمريكية‬ ‫ّركات‬ ‫الش‬ ‫إحدى‬ ‫تطوعت‬ ‫ناك‬ ( 531 p. .) In Example 3, the ST indicates that a friend of Saddat provided him with an aircraft. However, the Arabic version indicates that an American company voluntarily rented a private aircraft to fly Saddat back to Cairo. It would appear that Haikal wanted to hide certain information from his Arab readers, or to correct the information given in the ST.
(4) ST: "Girgis was the first to use the expression 'the Coptic nation'," (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p.152) TT : In Example 4, Haikal reveals some hidden ideologies by mentioning something in the translated version that is not mentioned in the original text, and vice versa. Faithful translation forces translators to stick to the original text, but Haikal deliberately omitted a key word and added some linguistic constructions, such as adjectives, for Arabic readership. Haikal knew well how Copts are welcomed and sympathised with in Europe, but he also knew much more about what Copts represent in Egypt. In the above example, he added the adjective "dangerous", " ‫الخطير‬ " , in the TT version, and omitted the words "the expression", which was in the original English text. Example 5 consists of three paragraphs in English, however the Arabic translation runs to four pages. There is such a marked difference between the two versions that one cannot consider one of them to be a translation to the other. The term ‫عالقة"‬ ‫ّة‬ ‫"قص‬ ('relationship story') is not equivalent to the term "abortive conspiracy", as the actual meaning of this term in Arabic is ‫فاشلة‬ ‫مؤامرة‬ ('a failed plot'). Moreover, there are many additional details in the TT version, such as events, names and much more, so that the reader could feel lost when following the two texts. Haikal wrote in the Arabic translation on page 46: ‫"كا‬ ‫صفحة‬ ‫من‬ ‫ابتداء‬ ‫لها‬ ‫روايته‬ ‫طبق‬ ‫التالي‬ ‫النحو‬ ‫على‬ ‫مجهولة‬ ‫صفحات‬ ‫في‬ ‫السادات‬ ‫رواها‬ ‫كما‬ ‫ّة‬ ‫القص‬ ‫نت‬ 59 ‫...وكان‬ ‫هو‬ ‫هذا‬ ‫ولدها‬ ‫أبلر‬ ‫هانز‬ " However, the original English text did not include any details of page numbers of the quoted source, nor did it include the names and characters that appear in the Arabic version. What Haikal presented in four pages as a translation of one page in the ST cannot be considered to be an adequate, faithful conversion by any means, yet it can be said that a rewriting process is involved, as allowed by the act of self-translation.
(6) ST: "The palace brooded on revenge, and the King's chief adviser, Ahmad Hassanein Pasha, identified three targetsthe Wafd must be broken; Killearn must be transferred; and Nahas and Amin Osman, regarded as the principal architects of the February 4 th ultimatum, must be appropriately dealt with." (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p.19 Example 6 is an obvious indication that the translation process is often actually a rewriting process. In the English text , no details regarding the characters Killearn, Nahas and Amin are mentioned, yet the Arabic translation presents additional information (in bold) regarding those characters, as well as details that add some new aspects for the reader. Therefore, the Arabic version represents a rewritten piece rather than a true translation. One reason behind these additions could be that they are politically more important for Arab readers, an indication that Haikal elaborated some details in the TT for political and ideological reasons. Haikal (1983) explained that some people criticised his book and they considered it as settling a score with Anwar Sadat. However, he refuted this and continued to support the beliefs outlined in the book, namely, the consequences of Sadat's policy decisions ultimately led to his assassination.  In Example 7, some information was added to the translation, whilst other information was omitted; this is presumably because the writer wanted to avoid revealing some of his ideologies related to the matters addressed in Autumn of Fury. In this example, Haikal talked about the "efforts" exerted by Sadat to achieve the "peace initiative", and that most people in Egypt (and the world) had lost hope in Sadat's efforts to achieve peace. Haikal (1983) mentioned that he was one of those who did not believe in Sadat's ability to achieve the hoped-for peace, but he did not stop at merely translating what he stated in English into Arabic. Instead, he added a sentence to emphasise Sadat's failure to achieve peace. The reason behind this addition could be that Haikal was expressing his own opinion about the peace initiative in 1977. This example is full of additions that Haikal allowed himself to contribute in the Arabic translation; being the owner of the text, he can simply add his own hypothesis to each event or story he presents, even if it is not written in the original text.
(8) ST: "Late in 1951 Sadat was officially invited to become a member of the Free Officers' movement…was more likely to operate as a double agent" (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p. 27 Example 8 is only one paragraph in the ST, but the translation is almost two pages. For instance, Haikal wrote in the English text that: "Almost all others in the leadership of the movement except Naser were strongly opposed to his inclusion", but he rendered it as ‫انضمامه‬ ‫"يعارضون‬ " , neglecting to use the emphasis adverb he originally used ('strongly'). It is clear that Haikal's ideologies as a political activist influenced the way he used his words in the Arabic translation of the original text.
Haikal also inserted a page and a half in the Arabic version that is not included in the original source text. In addition to other details, Haikal added many characters that did not exist in the original, such as Ernest Bevin (British Foreign Secretary) and Abd Al-Fattah Amro (Egyptian Ambassador), and told the story of their meeting regarding a letter to King Farouq. Haikal also added a whole paragraph containing his political analysis about the selection of Sadat by Abd Alnaser to be a member of the Free Officers; this is considered to be a crucial part of the book that both the English and the Arabic reader need to know. Moreover, in Example 8, Haikal added a conversation between himself and President Abd Alnaser about the factors that encouraged Abd Alnaser to put Sadat in such a leading high position. This conversation (below) did not feature in the original text.
‫في‬ A perceptive critic of Haikal's self-translated work will immediately realise how his additions and adaptations affect the two versions of the book. Haikal's self-translation methods also disadvantage the English reader in that they are unaware of the inclusions in the translated work, and it also presents an unfaithful image of the writer as a translator of their own works.
(9) ST: "In the late 1940s, a secret organisation which called itself 'The Movement of the Coptic Nation' was founded. This was an extreme group, with ideas about autonomy for the Copts, as its name implies" (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p.156 In Example 9, the Arabic translation preserves some of the original ST, but Haikal adds to and manipulates the meaning of this example in a way that clearly portrays his political views throughout the entire translation. All the sentences in bold font are not direct translations, they are sentences added to the Arabic version by Haikal to provide additional details for Arab readers. Additionally, the term 'The Movement of the Coptic Nation' does not translate to ‫القبطية"‬ ‫األمة‬ ‫"جماعة‬ in Arabic. The original text makes it clear that 'The Movement of the Coptic Nation' refers to an organisation (i.e. a distinct and separate group of individuals), while the Arabic translation refers to Copts in general.
Further analysis of 'A Church at Large' (the chapter from where the above example is taken), reveals that almost the whole chapter is completely rewritten. Throughout the chapter, instead of adopting the role of writer/translator, Haikal is instead an author recreating a new text, adding copious information to the Arabic version, and omitting or neglecting other information found in the original source text. The following example also highlights that Haikal, as the author, gave himself the liberty of adding to the text instead of simply translating it.
"In the 1950s many young Copts began leaving Egypt, most of them seeking a new life in the United States, Canada, or Australia where Christians with good professional qualifications found a ready welcome. Some members of the wealthier Coptic families sought a refuge for themselves and for their money in Switzerland" (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p.156).
- The Arabic translation indicates how a small paragraph in English is rendered into a large one in Arabic by the adding to and rewriting some of its parts. We can notice that " ‫وفي‬ ‫الخمسينات‬ ‫أواسط‬ ، ‫ظاهرة‬ ‫بدأت‬ ‫مصر_‬ ‫وبنك‬ ‫األهلي‬ ‫البنك‬ ‫بينها‬ ‫الكبرى‬ ‫البنوك‬ ‫من‬ ‫وعدد‬ ‫السويس‬ ‫قناة‬ ‫شركة‬ ‫تأميم‬ ‫ومع‬ ‫للنظر"‬ ‫ملفتة‬ ‫‪is‬أخرى‬ not originally mentioned in English, and neither are the rest of the sentences in bold font in Haikal's own translation.
Example (10) ST: "'It all started with a knock on my door by my friend Hassan Ezzat,' he recalls. 'The spies, one of whom was born in Germany but was brought up in Egypt...but I was worried on behalf of Eppler and Sandy over this contact with the Jews'" (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p.17-18 Example 10 is a quote taken from a book written by the late president Anwar Sadat. Haikal quoted two paragraphs in the English version of Autumn of Fury, then translated them into three and a half pages of Arabic by adding and rewriting. On page 47, in the Arabic translation that accompanies the above example, Haikal added the following paragraph, which is new information affecting the translation: ‫(ص‬ ‫والنجاح"‬ ‫التعليم‬ ‫سبل‬ ‫كل‬ ‫له‬ ‫فيسر‬ ‫مصر،‬ ‫في‬ ‫مطمئنة‬ ‫حياة‬ ‫زوجته‬ ‫البن‬ ‫يوفر‬ ‫ان‬ ‫المصري‬ ‫الزوج‬ ‫"وأراد‬ 47 .) Moreover, many conversations were added to the translation of this example, along with the characters' names which are entirely absent in the original English text.
(11) ST: "Christians in Egypt were to face many more persecutions, particularly under the emperors Decius, Valerian and Diocletian in the third and early fourth centuries AD,...so that one Christian writer could boast that the number of monks in Egypt equaled the whole of the rest of the population." (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p.139-140 In the above translation, Haikal replaces the term "During the early centuries of its existence, the church in Egypt…" with the Arabic translation: ‫ي‬ ‫أن‬ ‫"وقبل‬ ‫فإن‬ ‫التسامح‬ ‫قانون‬ ‫صدر‬ ‫المصرية"‬ ‫,الكنيسة‬ which assumes that the Arab reader knows when the "edict of toleration" had been issued. Also, the second part of the Arabic version is completely rewritten. A verbatim translator would adhere to the original text as much as possible to portray the full meaning and content. Moreover, the sentences in bold type in this example are additions, demonstrating the very clear differences between the original version and the translation. Finally, no translation (or rewriting) of the following sentence from Example 11 is found in the Arabic version: " […] so that one Christian writer could boast that the number of monks in Egypt equaled the whole of the rest of the population." The motivation behind deleting this sentence is that it may upset the Egyptian people (most Egyptians are Muslims). Throughout his translation of the book, Haikal tries to avoid any sentences that be sensitive for Egyptians in general.
(12) ST: "Friday, 18 January 1946. Yesterday after midnight I was taken to the Aliens goal. Once again, the Aliens goal. This is where I had found myself with Eppler and the others some years ago! …September God confound all propaganda and propagandists!" (Autumn of Fury, 1983, pp. 22-23 , which was originally issued in Arabic. Haikal rendered them into English in Autumn of Fury, then quoted them in Arabic. Haikal mentioned about ten diaries in the English version, but he quoted fourteen diaries. Being translated from Arabic, the diaries in the English version witness some changes and amendments by Haikal. In the diary entry of Friday, 18 th January 1946, Haikal quoted: "This is where I had found myself with Eppler and the others some years ago", whereas Sadat's original text is: " ‫رقم‬ ‫الغرفة‬ ‫هي‬ ‫فها‬ 28 ‫يسكنها‬ ‫كان‬ ‫التي‬ ‫األلمان)‬ ‫لحساب‬ ‫التجسس‬ ‫قضية‬ ‫اربعتنا(في‬ " In general, translation requires the translator to present a faithful rendition of the original as far as possible, and the same applies when translating a quote. In this example liberties are taken with the translation, for example, the original quotation mentions the prison room number, but Haikal omited this. Also, in original Sadat's diary there is no mention of any names, but in the English translation by Haikal in Autumn of Fury, he referred to "Eppler and the others".
Many of the other diaries are shortened in English, and some information was omitted for no obvious reason. For instance, the diary entry: "Sunday, 20 January -Nothing much happened. I sent a letter to the public prosecutor protesting against my bad treatment", is a shortened form of the original Arabic diary entry, as follows: ‫ .) It is obvious that Haikal treated these diaries, quoted from Sadat's book, as if they were written by himself. He therefore felt free to omit material or rewrite each entry, and treated this process as an act of 'translation'. Another example of manipulation of quoting and translating is the diary entry: "September God confound all propaganda and propagandists!" This is not the same as the following original Arabic entry: ‫"سبتمبر‬ 1946 ‫قاتل‬ :

‫البروباجندا!‬ ‫هللا‬ ‫أفراده‬ ‫أحد‬ ‫وكان‬ ‫السجن،‬ ‫طرقة‬ ‫في‬ ‫مر‬ ‫موكبا‬ ‫المجلة‬ ‫تحرير‬ ‫هيئة‬ ‫نظمت‬ ‫اليوم‬ ‫يعزف‬ ‫مصنوعة‬ ‫طبلة‬ ‫يحمل‬ ‫آخر‬ ‫وكان‬ ‫فارغة،‬ ‫فواكه‬ ‫علبة‬ ‫على‬ ‫ومشدود‬ ‫الكلسونات))‬ ‫((أستك‬ ‫من‬ ‫مصنوع‬ ‫مندولين‬ ‫على‬ ‫ويهللون."‬ ‫يصفقون‬ ‫والمسجونون‬ ‫الموكب‬ ‫وسار‬ ‫لنا،‬ ‫المنصرف‬ ‫المياه‬ ‫صحن‬ ‫على‬ ‫مشدود‬ ‫ورق‬ ‫من‬
Haikal often manipulates and deletes parts of Sadat's diaries when quoting them in his work. In this example, he translated only the first statement and ignored the rest of the quotation. In fact, Example 12 explicitly illustrates the many problematic gaps in Haikal's Arabic translation as a result of omission, addition, or manipulation in English and Arabic texts. As previously mentioned, only ten diaries are referred to in the English version, but this number is higher in the Arabic version. The reason behind deleting these diaries could be social, ideological and political. (13) ST: "Yussef Rashad had recruited Hassan Ezzat into the Iron Guard, though arrested at the same time as Sadat he had been released…and that all prisoners worked on the royal estates, made this sort of special treatment easy." (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p.20 Example 13 illustrates some of the problems of self-translation. Comparing the two texts, it is observed that the style of presenting information is different in each version. In the Arabic translation, the first line (in bold font) is an addition that is not mentioned in the original. The content of the two versions is also different; Haikal originally wrote a paragraph that provides information about certain individual's acts, and their relationship with President Sadat, but in the translation he presented this in the form of points which he described as ‫مؤكدة‬ ‫"حقائق‬ " . Hidden ideology or political reservations play a major part in Haikal's selftranslation. In the following example we can see how Haikal offered a translation for the following sentence: "Accordingly, an emissary from the Palace visited him in Maksouh prison, and after he had been enrolled in the Iron Guard it was arranged for him to be moved to Zeitoun camp, near Cairo." The translation says: ‫ذهب‬

‬ ‫الحرس‬
No identical information is provided in the Arabic translation. In the ST, Haikal wrote "an emissary from the Palace", but in the Arabic version he referred to ‫غامض‬ ‫"زائر‬ " . He deliberately avoided explicit reference to that character as he was aware of the many political implications. Moreover, the additional information included in the Arabic translation is a clear indication that Haikal wanted to examine details of the life of the late Anwar Sadat before he became the President of the Republic of Egypt.
(14) ST: "When, under the Emperor Theodosius the Great (380-95), Christianity became the official religion of the empire this brought disadvantages as well as advantages to churchmen. A state religion must find itself liable to state control, and the emperors were anxious to ensure uniformity of belief as well as uniformity of laws. Doctrinal arguments, mainly about the relationship between the divinity and the humanity of Christ, for long distracted the Church. The creed to which Athanasius gave his name has become the symbol of Christian orthodoxy, but a century later at the council Chalcedon (451) his successor, the Patriarch Discourse, was excommunicated. Because the point of difference on which the split occurred was the single incarnate nature of Christ, God and man, on which discourse would admit no compromise, the Church in Egypt became known as Monophysite, as it is today. This heresy, if heresy it was, became adopted as a badge of nationalism." (Autumn of Fury, 1983, p.141 (pp.310-311). A lot of additional information appears in the Arabic translation, and the timeline and sequence of events represented in the two texts do not coincide.
(15) ST: "I assure you Anwar,' the description of their interview goes on, 'I want to put an end to these misunderstandings. I am sure foreigners will feel safe with us. If I meet the king I am sure I can win his confidence. One meeting between us would be sufficient. I am not asking the king to cooperate with us; I only want to assure him that he has nothing to fear from the Moslem Brotherhood. You know Yussef Rashad. Can you explain my wishes to the king that I will never be a danger to him?' Sadat said he would do his best. A year later, on orders from the palace, Hassan el-Banna was assassinated" (Autumn of Fury, 1983, pp. 24-25 Example 15 is a quoted passage which Haikal extracted from Sadat's Unknown Pages (in Arabic). In the Arabic translation, Haikal included the conversation between Sadat and Hassan el-Banna exactly as was written by Sadat in Unknown Pages. However, in the English version, Haikal translated it into a very short passage, which becomes three pages in the Arabic translation.
A great deal of detailed information from the original Arabic is not transferred to English. The first statement (in bold font) in Arabic, where Haikal starts the quotation with "I assure you Anwar…" is not found in the English version. At the end of the example, following the quoted conversation, Haikal appeared to be unfaithful in translating what he originally wrote in English. In the following statement: "A year later, on orders from the palace, Hassan el-Banna was assassinated" he translated as: " ‫الوساطة‬ ‫هذه‬ ‫من‬ ‫قليلة‬ ‫أشهر‬ ‫بعد‬ ‫اغتياله‬ ‫كان‬ ‫حتى‬ ‫البنا‬ ‫حسن‬ ‫الشيخ‬ ‫في‬ ‫وتزداد‬ ‫تزداد‬ ‫القصر‬ ‫شكوك‬ ‫وظلت‬ ". In the English version, we can see how he explicitly accused the Palace of the assassination of Hassan el-Banna, while in the Arabic translation he manipulated his words to protect himself from any investigation as a result of this accusation. Moreover, the sentence which starts: "A year later" is translated as: ‫قليلة."‬ ‫أشهر‬ ‫"بعد‬ indicating no particular accuracy in transferring information between the English and Arabic versions.

CONCLUSION
This study found that, in the example of Haikal and Autumn of Fury, the author as a translator offers an almost new version of his original, which is demonstrated by the additions, omissions, and completely rewritten parts in the translated version. The study also concluded that any act of self-translation results in rewriting to recreate another original for a new readership. It can be said that self-translators do not follow the core principles that translators understand to be standard translation rules, which is essentially faithfulness to the ST. The study also revealed that self-translators are bilingual or multilingual authors who prefer to practice their bilingualism and biculturalism by providing their originals in many languages for different readerships. Based on CDA analysis of the ST and TT, it is understood that there are political, cultural, ideological and social reasons that forced Haikal to rewrite the ST into a new version which conforms to the culture and ideology of the TT audience. Haikal insisted on self-translating Autumn of Fury as was worried that other translators may not render the intended messages to Arab readers. By doing this, he protected himself from social, cultural, political and ideological responsibilities.