Description “conveys the intended legal meaning of the concept of Islamic law and reproduces the legal effect envisaged in the TT, which is the final result of the legal translation” [7, p. 903]. Since there is no cultural equivalence, the differences between legal cultures are more difficult to overcome than some of the issues discussed above. Legrand [30, p. 33] comments that “every law remains an expression of the language, culture and tradition it called to be born. There is nothing to show that the same inscribed words necessarily create the same idea in a different culture. For Snell-Hornby [37, p. 34], “translation is an imitation of the original text in the target text in the new cultural context, the main determinant of translation being the specific function.” As a result, lexical objects from different cultures can have different functions and meanings. Another example is the concept of (reflection – ?????????) in the common law, which does not exist in other laws, civil law. It is defined below: the Arabic reader finds the above expressions easy to understand because they are part of his culture. However, when translated into English, they make no sense to TT and do not affect the validity of the document if it is to be considered legally binding. The possibilities of omitting these elements are highlighted below: the two legal systems are remarkably different and each of them fits into the cultural context of each system.
Legal English is associated with the common law, where many “artistic terms” can only be understood in a common law context [39, p. .