The Benguin classic translation of the Koran
Amro
Mashan as hacking although the word
is also used in 4:43 as wipe in purification
rituals. So the necks and legs of the
horses were hacked instead of wiped
Yusuf B Gursey
the verb masaHa (in the 3rd person sing. masc. perfect; the -an at the
end is the accusative of the verbal noun; means principally to rub, to
wipe, to stroke (Hebrew mA*sh*aH). hence masi:H ; (Hebrew ma*sh*i:(a)H
anointed, i.e. "Messiah") "anointed (one)" . secondarily and
figuratively "to strike ("hack") with a sword".
in 4:43 and 5:7 (twice) in the imperative it has to do with ritual
purification hence "to wipe". in 38:33 (verbal noun in the accusative)
it has to do with the kindness Solomon gave to the horses that God
gave him he didn't kill them) hence "stroke". if the "Benguin" (should
be "Penguin"; your Arabic accent is showing) classics edition, hardly
authoritative, says "hacked" (i.e. struck with a sword) it is just
plain wrong. better translations use "stroke" or an equivalent: "pass
his hands over" in Yusuf Ali
DKleinecke
> On Jul 12, 5:20=3DA0am, Amro <Amro_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In verse 38:33 they translate the word
> > Mashan as hacking although the word
> > is also used in 4:43 as wipe in purification
> > rituals. So the necks and legs of the
> > horses were hacked instead of wiped
>
> the verb masaHa (in the 3rd person sing. masc. perfect; the -an at the
> end is the accusative of the verbal noun; means principally to rub, to
> wipe, to stroke (Hebrew mA*sh*aH). hence masi:H ; (Hebrew ma*sh*i:(a)H
> figuratively "to strike ("hack") with a sword".
>
> in 4:43 and 5:7 (twice) in the imperative it has to do with ritual
> purification hence "to wipe". in 38:33 (verbal noun in the accusative)
> it has to do with the kindness Solomon gave to the horses that God
> gave him he didn't kill them) hence "stroke". if the "Benguin" (should
> be "Penguin"; your Arabic accent is showing) classics edition, hardly
> authoritative, says "hacked" (i.e. struck with a sword) it is just
> plain wrong. better translations use "stroke" or an equivalent: "pass
> his hands over" in Yusuf Ali
The idea that Solomon killed the horses was not invented by the
Penguin translators. In Maulana Mohammad Ali's notes on 38:33 He says
"The story that Solomon killed the horses has no basis." So it is not
an error in translation, but rather a translator following a
commentary that none of us accept. MMA does not give any reference, so
I have no idea who advanced this interpretation.
This is a nice example of the problems of translation and exegesis.
One could say the Qur'an is not translatable because it is not
uniformly understood even in the original. Or, conversely, translation
is a species of commentary.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Jul 12, 10:25=3DA0am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 5:20=3D3DA0am, Amro <Amro_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In verse 38:33 they translate the word
> > > Mashan as hacking although the word
> > > is also used in 4:43 as wipe in purification
> > > rituals. So the necks and legs of the
> > > horses were hacked instead of wiped
>
> > the verb masaHa (in the 3rd person sing. masc. perfect; the -an at the
> > end is the accusative of the verbal noun; means principally to rub, to
> > wipe, to stroke (Hebrew mA*sh*aH). hence masi:H ; (Hebrew ma*sh*i:(a)H
> > figuratively "to strike ("hack") with a sword".
>
> > in 4:43 and 5:7 (twice) in the imperative it has to do with ritual
> > purification hence "to wipe". in 38:33 (verbal noun in the accusative)
> > it has to do with the kindness Solomon gave to the horses that God
> > gave him he didn't kill them) hence "stroke". if the "Benguin" (should
> > be "Penguin"; your Arabic accent is showing) classics edition, hardly
> > authoritative, says "hacked" (i.e. struck with a sword) it is just
> > plain wrong. better translations use "stroke" or an equivalent: "pass
> > his hands over" in Yusuf Ali
>
> The idea that Solomon killed the horses was not invented by the
> Penguin translators. In Maulana Mohammad Ali's notes on 38:33 He says
> "The story that Solomon killed the horses has no basis." So it is not
> an error in translation, but rather a translator following a
> commentary that none of us accept. MMA does not give any reference, so
> I have no idea who advanced this interpretation.
>
yes, I was going to post about it. I saw it in Lane under masaHa and
Tafiqa . under Tafiqa it says << {Taj-u `Arus} "He took to severing
with the sword [the thighs and necks], or as some say, to wiping [or
stroking] with his hand [the thighs and necks]. >>
under masaHa it says: << Agreeably with both these significations
masHan is rendered in Kur. xxxviii.32: some say that what is here
meant is the wiping with his hand wetted with water: according to IAth
{?}, Solomon is said to have smitten the necks and hock tendons of the
horses. >>
I don't believe tha tteh Qura'n would advocate not just killing but
wanton butchery of animals without reason.
> This is a nice example of the problems of translation and exegesis.
> One could say the Qur'an is not translatable because it is not
> uniformly understood even in the original. Or, conversely, translation
> is a species of commentary.
that las sentence is accepted by muslims. translations are considered
a commentary.
hajj abujamal
On 7/12/2010 5:25 PM, DKleinecke wrote:
> This is a nice example of the problems of translation and exegesis.
Ignorance is definitely a large problem of translation and exegesis.
When you've exercised a horse, you rub down its neck and its legs.
It's not a "kindness," it's necessary to the health of the horse, just
as it's necessary for a sprinter to walk off the muscular stresses of a
hard sprint. A horse, like a man, will literally run himself to death,
over-taxing muscles.
The Ayat shows that he was properly caring for the horses. That
should be obvious to anyone reading the text, whether for translation or
for exegesis.
Unless you're ignorant about how to take care of a horse, of course.
was-salaam,
abujamal
--
astaghfirullahal-ladhee laa ilaha illa
howal-hayyul-qayyoom wa 'atoobu 'ilaihi
Rejoice, muslims, in martyrdom without fighting,
a Mercy for us. Be like the better son of Adam.
Yusuf B Gursey
> Salaam!
>
> On 7/12/2010 5:25 PM, DKleinecke wrote:
>
>
> =A0 =A0 Ignorance is definitely a large problem of translation and exeges=
is.
>
> =A0 =A0 When you've exercised a horse, you rub down its neck and its legs=
.
> It's not a "kindness," it's necessary to the health of the horse, just
> as it's necessary for a sprinter to walk off the muscular stresses of a
> over-taxing muscles.
>
> =A0 =A0 The Ayat shows that he was properly caring for the horses. =A0Tha=
t
> should be obvious to anyone reading the text, whether for translation or
> for exegesis.
good point.
>
> =A0 =A0 Unless you're ignorant about how to take care of a horse, of cour=
se.
>
> was-salaam,
> abujamal
Amro
om> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 10:25=3DA0am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> The idea that Solomon killed the horses was not invented by the
> Penguin translators. In Maulana Mohammad Ali's notes on 38:33 He says
> "The story that Solomon killed the horses has no basis." So it is not
> an error in translation, but rather a translator following a
> commentary that none of us accept. MMA does not give any reference, so
> I have no idea who advanced this interpretation.
>
Sorry for the spelling error first. It seems
that this interpretation has roots in Arabic
interpretation based on calling the sword
Masseeh because it is wiped. My point
is that Dawood the translator intentionally
picks the worst interpretation, especially
that I encountered other bad interpretations
but did not make note of it
DKleinecke
> On 13 =3DD9=3D8A=3DD9=3D88=3DD9=3D84=3DD9=3D8A=3DD9=3D88, 03:25, DKleinec=
ke <dkleine...@gmail.c=3D
>
> om> wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 10:25=3D3DA0am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea that Solomon killed the horses was not invented by the
> > Penguin translators. In Maulana Mohammad Ali's notes on 38:33 He says
> > "The story that Solomon killed the horses has no basis." So it is not
> > an error in translation, but rather a translator following a
> > commentary that none of us accept. MMA does not give any reference, so
> > I have no idea who advanced this interpretation.
>
> Sorry for the spelling error first. It seems
> that this interpretation has roots in Arabic
> interpretation based on calling the sword
> Masseeh because it is wiped. My point
> is that Dawood the translator intentionally
> picks the worst interpretation, especially
> that I encountered other bad interpretations
> but did not make note of it
I agree but until I know where the story came from I can't
conclusively blame the inferior translation on Islamophobia. I haven't
been doing tafsir, so I don't have access to any of the big tafsir
books. For all I know, this is Ibn Kathir's reading and the
translators, in an effort to be impartial, laid down a rule that they
would always follow Ibn Kathis.
Does anybody know where the story (that Solomon either killed or
mutilated the horses) comes from?
Fariduddien Rice
> On 13 =3DD9=3D8A=3DD9=3D88=3DD9=3D84=3DD9=3D8A=3DD9=3D88, 03:25, DKleinec=
ke <dkleine...@gmail.c=3D
>
> is that Dawood the translator intentionally
> picks the worst interpretation, especially
> that I encountered other bad interpretations
> but did not make note of it
Assalamu alaikum,
The Penguin N. J. Dawood translation has many errors, where the
translator has picked a mistranslation hostile to Islam.
There is more information on this from this article from Ziauddin
Sardar from 2004, from the New Statesman.
"Lost in translation. Most English-language editions of the Qur'an
have contained numerous errors, omissions and distortions. Hardly
surprising, writes Ziauddin Sardar, when one of their purposes was to
denigrate not just the Holy Book, but the entire Islamic faith"
http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090035
N. J. Dawood - the translator of the Penguin translation of the Quran
(Koran), is from an Iraqi Jewish background. Penguin hides this
information about its translator - they state he is from Iraq, which
makes everyone leap to the conclusion that he is Muslim, but in fact
he is Jewish, a fact which seems to be intentionally hidden by Penguin
in the information it provides about the translator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._J._Dawood
I feel that Muslims should protest this intentional deception of the
public by Penguin, especially as it harms Muslims, and this deception
of the public by Penguin has been harming Muslims for many decades
now.
Wassalam,
Fariduddien
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Jul 15, 3:16=3DA0am, Amro <Amro_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On 13 =3D3DD9=
=3D3D8A=3D3DD9=3D3D88=3D3DD9=3D3D84=3D3DD9=3D3D8A=3D3DD9=3D3D88, 03:25, DKl=
einec=3D
>
> ke <dkleine...@gmail.c=3D3D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > om> wrote:
> > > On Jul 12, 10:25=3D3D3DA0am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote=
:
>
> > > The idea that Solomon killed the horses was not invented by the
> > > Penguin translators. In Maulana Mohammad Ali's notes on 38:33 He says
> > > "The story that Solomon killed the horses has no basis." So it is not
> > > an error in translation, but rather a translator following a
o
> > > I have no idea who advanced this interpretation.
>
> > Sorry for the spelling error first. It seems
> > that this interpretation has roots in Arabic
> > interpretation based on calling the sword
> > Masseeh because it is wiped. My point
> > is that Dawood the translator intentionally
> > picks the worst interpretation, especially
> > that I encountered other bad interpretations
> > but did not make note of it
>
> I agree but until I know where the story came from I can't
> conclusively blame the inferior translation on Islamophobia. I haven't
> been doing tafsir, so I don't have access to any of the big tafsir
> books. For all I know, this is Ibn Kathir's reading and the
> translators, in an effort to be impartial, laid down a rule that they
> would always follow Ibn Kathis.
>
> Does anybody know where the story (that Solomon either killed or
> mutilated the horses) comes from?
it comes form an interpretation of the verse in question.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Jul 12, 10:25=3DA0am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 5:20=3D3DA0am, Amro <Amro_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In verse 38:33 they translate the word
> > > Mashan as hacking although the word
> > > is also used in 4:43 as wipe in purification
> > > rituals. So the necks and legs of the
> > > horses were hacked instead of wiped
>
> > the verb masaHa (in the 3rd person sing. masc. perfect; the -an at the
> > end is the accusative of the verbal noun; means principally to rub, to
> > wipe, to stroke (Hebrew mA*sh*aH). hence masi:H ; (Hebrew ma*sh*i:(a)H
> > figuratively "to strike ("hack") with a sword".
>
> > in 4:43 and 5:7 (twice) in the imperative it has to do with ritual
> > purification hence "to wipe". in 38:33 (verbal noun in the accusative)
> > it has to do with the kindness Solomon gave to the horses that God
> > gave him he didn't kill them) hence "stroke". if the "Benguin" (should
> > be "Penguin"; your Arabic accent is showing) classics edition, hardly
> > authoritative, says "hacked" (i.e. struck with a sword) it is just
> > plain wrong. better translations use "stroke" or an equivalent: "pass
> > his hands over" in Yusuf Ali
>
> The idea that Solomon killed the horses was not invented by the
> Penguin translators. In Maulana Mohammad Ali's notes on 38:33 He says
> "The story that Solomon killed the horses has no basis." So it is not
> an error in translation, but rather a translator following a
> commentary that none of us accept. MMA does not give any reference, so
> I have no idea who advanced this interpretation.
>
> This is a nice example of the problems of translation and exegesis.
> One could say the Qur'an is not translatable because it is not
> uniformly understood even in the original. Or, conversely, translation
> is a species of commentary.
translation of anything substantial involves some interpretation. this
is not confined to the Qur'an. the Catholic Church gives an
"imprematur" to Bible translations in order to certify that they
conform to Christian (particularly Catholic) dogma. as early as the
LXX the question of interpretation arose. concerning the mother of the
Messiah the Hebrew as a word that more means "young woman" `almA
(Isiah 7:14) while the LXX uses parthenos tending more to mean
"virgin". the followers of the New Testament were going along with the
meaning "virgin", hence the Virgin Birth. Catholic Bibles have to go
along with meaning "virgin".
in the field of diplomacy, I was told by diplomats that Resolution 242
requires Israel to withdraw from "occupied territories" in the English
version, while the French version, I was told has an article, thus
beingmore emphatic about total withdrawel. Israel argues with the
English version, claiming only a partial withdrawel is called for an
justifies keeping large chunks of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem.
in Turkish, translations the Qur'an are called a "me'al" (arabic:
ma'a:l) of the Qur'an, meaning the content or meaning of the Qur'an;
emphasizing that the transation is really just a human interpetation.
DKleinecke
> in Turkish, translations the Qur'an are called a "me'al" (arabic:
> ma'a:l) of the Qur'an, meaning the content or meaning of the Qur'an;
> emphasizing that the transation is really just a human interpetation.
It is an old idea that the Qur'an cannot be translated. And, of
course, that is a true fact because - in the last analysis - NOTHING
can be translated. That leaves us with two possible meanings for
"translation". One would be a literal morpheme-for-morpheme linear
translation (which people call a crib) and the other is a concept for
concept transfer.
I have not seen any translation of the Qur'an which meets either of
these meanings. All of them seem to be mongrel mixes of the two
feasible extremes.
In any case both of these kinds of translations actually are rather
intense commentary. Neither morphemes nor concepts are identical in
any two languages. For myself I would prefer a crib, but a crib would
drive most readers crazy in a few sentences. I have fallen back on
learning Arabic.
One thing that should be remembered is that today, fourteen hundred
years later, nobody speaks the language of the Qur'an and we are all
in this translation business together. The Arabophone community still
holds onto the ideal of common Arabic and it appears we will have to
wait a little longer for translations of the Qur'an in neo-Arabic
languages. But they are coming.
Johannes Patruus
> On Jul 16, 7:33=A0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
>> in Turkish, translations the Qur'an are called a "me'al" (arabic:
>> ma'a:l) of the Qur'an, meaning the content or meaning of the Qur'an;
>> emphasizing that the transation is really just a human interpetation.
>
> It is an old idea that the Qur'an cannot be translated. And, of
> course, that is a true fact because - in the last analysis - NOTHING
> can be translated. That leaves us with two possible meanings for
> "translation". One would be a literal morpheme-for-morpheme linear
> translation (which people call a crib) and the other is a concept for
> concept transfer.
> I have not seen any translation of the Qur'an which meets either of
> these meanings. All of them seem to be mongrel mixes of the two
> feasible extremes.
You might find this Arabic-English interlinear version of Sura 64
(at-Taghâbun) to be of interest -
http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924026852537#page/n106/mode/1up
There is even an Arabic-Latin interlinear of the same sura -
http://books.google.com/books?id=GRw-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA186
Patruus
DKleinecke
> DKleinecke wrote:
>
> >> in Turkish, translations the Qur'an are called a "me'al" (arabic:
> >> ma'a:l) of the Qur'an, meaning the content or meaning of the Qur'an;
> >> emphasizing that the transation is really just a human interpetation.
>
> > It is an old idea that the Qur'an cannot be translated. And, of
> > course, that is a true fact because - in the last analysis - NOTHING
> > can be translated. That leaves us with two possible meanings for
> > translation (which people call a crib) and the other is a concept for
> > concept transfer.
> > I have not seen any translation of the Qur'an which meets either of
> > these meanings. All of them seem to be mongrel mixes of the two
> > feasible extremes.
>
> You might find this Arabic-English interlinear version of Sura 64
> =A0http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924026852537#page/n106/mode/1up
>
> There is even an Arabic-Latin interlinear of the same sura -
>
> Patruus
That is a real crib. It could be improved, but it is satisfactory
considering the date.
But it is only one short fragment of the Qur'an. Not a complete
edition.
In my case I have gone beyond the need for a crib. It took some time
and effort on my part to learn enough Arabic to dispense with cribs.
Some body else might not want to invest so much and might appreciate
an interlinear edition. I am not just about to prepare one.
I think more people will be best served by a concept for concept
translation. Of course, one has be prepared to provide notes
explaining different readings like the one that started this thread.
That is why I prefer the Maulana Muhammad Ali translation. The English
is just as good as any of the others and the notes are better. Even if
MMA was an Ahmadiya and has a few odd ideas (like Jesus escaping to
India).
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Jul 16, 7:33=A0pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> > in Turkish, translations the Qur'an are called a "me'al" (arabic:
> > ma'a:l) of the Qur'an, meaning the content or meaning of the Qur'an;
> > emphasizing that the transation is really just a human interpetation.
>
> It is an old idea that the Qur'an cannot be translated. And, of
> course, that is a true fact because - in the last analysis - NOTHING
that was my point.
it is clear from the Qur'an itself that the Qur'an is in Arabic but
also that it is meant to be understood. so the conclusion is that only
the original Arabic is meant to be *the* Qur'an, but also that it must
be understood,
see for example Suratu Yusuf 12:2
so hence translations were provided at a relatively early date. 10th
cent for Persian (when New Persian became a common literary medium),
and 11th cent. for Turkic (when Turkic first became a language of
Islamic literature). the Hanafis even allowed recital in Persian (and
hence other languages) during prayer, although this was discontinued.
there are texts telling that the Fatiha was recited during prayer in
Sogdian (the text says "Persian" and what is recited is deciphered as
"get up", not the Fatiha itself) for Bukhara during the eary phase of
the Arab conquest, and in Spanish or whatever you might wish to call
the local Romance vernacular at the time) for early Muslim Spain. but
this did not last long. the translation of the QUr'an for learning
purposes was not a theological issue, unlike the translation of the
Bible in Christianity, where it did become an issue. see Walid Saleh,
"IN SEARCH OF A COMPREHENSIBLE QUR'AN: A SURVEY OF SOME RECENT
SCHOLARLY WORKS" Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith
Studies 5, no. 2 (Autumn/Winter 2003) : 143-162 (available online),
his criticism of M. Cook on this matter:
<<
Furthermore, Muslims from the non-Arab world show "little sign of
adopting the idea of a vernacular scripture in the manner of sixteenth-
century Protestantism or twentieth century Catholicism." {quote from
Cook} But, unlike the situation in Latin Europe, where any translation
of scripture was banned, Muslims had interlinear translations
of their scriptures from an early date, as Cook himself mentions.
Thus, the translation of scripture in the Muslim world did not take on
the symbolic significance that it had in Latin Europe, where it
involved movements of religious and political reform in the Church.
Indeed, the very opposite occurred in the Muslim world, where reform
movements were very much connected to the notion of teaching Arabic to
non-Arabs in order to make the Qur'an more accessible.
>>
> can be translated. That leaves us with two possible meanings for
> "translation". One would be a literal morpheme-for-morpheme linear
> translation (which people call a crib) and the other is a concept for
> concept transfer.
> I have not seen any translation of the Qur'an which meets either of
> these meanings. All of them seem to be mongrel mixes of the two
> feasible extremes.
in muslim countries there is the usual option of translating heavily
laden with Arabic loanwords. the loanwords are learned as part of the
eductaional proccess.
>
> In any case both of these kinds of translations actually are rather
> intense commentary. Neither morphemes nor concepts are identical in
> any two languages. For myself I would prefer a crib, but a crib would
> drive most readers crazy in a few sentences. I have fallen back on
> learning Arabic.
>
> One thing that should be remembered is that today, fourteen hundred
> years later, nobody speaks the language of the Qur'an and we are all
> in this translation business together. The Arabophone community still
> holds onto the ideal of common Arabic and it appears we will have to
> wait a little longer for translations of the Qur'an in neo-Arabic
> languages. But they are coming.
native churches don't even use the Bible in colloquial Arabic. only
some missionary oriented chruches in the Levant and (the missionary
oriented) Catholic Church in the Sudan use it. there is no pressing
need to publish a colloquial Arabic Qur'an as long as Classical Arabic
(very slightly modernized) is part of the normal proccess of learning
to read and write. Arabs at this point desire a common standard to
communicate in and they chose a stabdard that was both "neutral" and
was based on tradition. nowadays, with education spreading and
literacy in (Neo-) Classical Arabic spreading the neccesity of the
writing in the colloqiuals is diminishing, that id the choice the
Arabs are making and it is their bussiness, not that of outsiders (and
certainly not that of colonial and neo-colonial owers that have a
stake in Arab disunity). returning to the original topic, there was
however a popular Egyptian scholar who was known for his popular
Qur'anic commentaries on radio with heavy slips into the colloquial.
I'll post his name when I find it. it was remarked by an Arabist that
a collection of his sermons would constitute the closest thing to a
colloquial Arabic trranslation of the Qur'an.
this harping on the translation of the Qur'an seems more of a polemic,
as many religions have a standard canon in based on one language
(Judaism and Hinduism come to mind). yet, Isreali Hebrew is very
different from Masoretic Hebrew (and hence Biblical Hebrew; besides
vocabulary and pronounciation, Israeli Hebrew differs from Masoretic
Hebrew in verbal tenses and syntax, Israeli Hebrew being influenced by
Yiddish on many matters; also translations have been available since
the ear of the Targums and the LXX) and Vedic Sanskrit is not the
native language of anyone either. nor is it an official language of
India. it is Christianity that stands out as having various canons in
various languages and for various sects. various languages and for
various sects.
DKleinecke
...
But I have snipped it all because I don't really have any problem with
any of the historical facts recited there. I am mostly interested in
the way the translations are used and IMHO often abused.
If one accepts the traditional Muslim position that the Qur'an is
uncreated and is (please forgive me if I misuse any technical term of
theology) an attribute of Allah it seems to follow that the text that
has been passed down to us is the best possible text. I assume that
there is a single text we all agree on.
One could argue that it is an uncalled-for restriction upon Allah to
declare that Allah's speech must be in a certain dialect of Arabic at
a certain point in time. One could point to the fact that, according
to the commonest train of thought, the Qur'an was revealed in older
times to other prophets - most notably Moses and Jesus - and since
corrupted. But those older revelations must have been in Hebrew and
Aramaic respectively. One could make such arguments and, in fact, you
find Muslim scholars making them as far back as our records reach.
Nevertheless the standard Muslim position is that Qur'anic Arabic is
the proper language for prayer. So Muslims learn to pray in Quranic
Arabic. BUT do they understand what they are saying? The answer seems
to be - no and yes. That is, they do not understand the Qur'an in the
way ordinary speech is understood. They understand it because they
have been told what it means (by any one of a whole host of would-be
religious teachers). That is, they are using a translation. But it is
not a translation written in a book. It is a translation provided by a
mostly oral tradition that Islamic teachers pass back and forth among
themselves and often write down partially in one form or another.
In my humble opinion Islam would be better served by Muslims going
directly to the Qur'an for guidance and making less use of the
opinions of the so-called scholars - contemporary or ancient. But
that is just me.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Jul 19, 12:26=3DA0am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
>
> =A0...
>
> But I have snipped it all because I don't really have any problem with
> any of the historical facts recited there. I am mostly interested in
> the way the translations are used and IMHO often abused.
>
> If one accepts the traditional Muslim position that the Qur'an is
> uncreated and is (please forgive me if I misuse any technical term of
> theology) an attribute of Allah it seems to follow that the text that
> has been passed down to us is the best possible text. I assume that
> there is a single text we all agree on.
>
> One could argue that it is an uncalled-for restriction upon Allah to
> declare that Allah's speech must be in a certain dialect of Arabic at
it is stated in the Qur'an: the reason it was revealed in Arabic was
so that Muhammad's audience should understand it and thus not doubt
it.
> a certain point in time. One could point to the fact that, according
> to the commonest train of thought, the Qur'an was revealed in older
> times to other prophets - most notably Moses and Jesus - and since
> corrupted. But those older revelations must have been in Hebrew and
> Aramaic respectively. One could make such arguments and, in fact, you
yes, and many more, to every nation in his own people's speech,
according to the Qur'an.
> find Muslim scholars making them as far back as our records reach.
>
> Nevertheless the standard Muslim position is that Qur'anic Arabic is
> the proper language for prayer. So Muslims learn to pray in Quranic
ritual prayer. one can also make personal appeals to God in any
language.
> Arabic. BUT do they understand what they are saying? The answer seems
> to be - no and yes. That is, they do not understand the Qur'an in the
> way ordinary speech is understood. They understand it because they
> have been told what it means (by any one of a whole host of would-be
in modern times at least in modern times, translations are usually
provided as part of religious education.
what is involved in the Sala:(t) is the Fatiha and three short verses
or a short Surah. the Qur'an only enjoins :to recite of it so much as
feasible" (Q73:20) see M. Cook "the Koran ..." p. 78 . so mostly it is
formula verses, that involve no subtleties of translation or
understanding.
> religious teachers). That is, they are using a translation. =A0But it is
> not a translation written in a book. It is a translation provided by a
> mostly oral tradition that Islamic teachers pass back and forth among
> themselves and often write down partially in one form or another.
>
> In my humble opinion Islam would be better served by Muslims going
> directly to the Qur'an for guidance and making less use of the
> opinions of the so-called scholars - contemporary or ancient. =A0But
> that is just me.
teaching at least aminimal arabic is usually part of religious
education.
Zev
> On Jul 12, 8:25=3DA0pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 10:25=3D3DA0am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 12, 5:20=3D3D3DA0am, Amro <Amro_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> in the field of diplomacy, I was told by diplomats that Resolution
242
:> requires Israel to withdraw from "occupied territories" in the
English
:> version, while the French version, I was told has an article, thus
:> being more emphatic about total withdrawel. Israel argues with the
:> English version, claiming only a partial withdrawel is called for
an
:> justifies keeping large chunks of the West Bank and all of
Jerusalem.
The article you refer to was avoided at the insistence of delegates
in the deliberations preceding the final 242 formulation.
The implication is *known*, it isn't "Israel's argument".