Breaking the Sword of Islam

[SanFrank]

The acceptable translations for this Surah is as follows:

Why would God send down the Quran and calls it a 'fabrication'? If there is any fabrication, it looks like it is coming from you.

Acceptable to Islam and Arabs perhaps... but I know and YOU know it can be translated other ways. The new translations make more sense.

The Koran consists of paraphrased translations from the Holy Bible... the Book (alkitabi)... makes sense as a fabrication....

(43,2-3) "And the Book, the clear/evident. Certainly we have made it an Arabic Koran, perhaps you comprehend."

 

[Islam_mulia]

Acceptable to Islam and Arabs perhaps... but I know and YOU know it can be translated other ways. The new translations make more sense.

The Koran consists of paraphrased translations from the Holy Bible... the Book (alkitabi)... makes sense as a fabrication....

(43,2-3) "And the Book, the clear/evident. Certainly we have made it an Arabic Koran, perhaps you comprehend."

There can never be a 100% accurate translations from one language to another. Nonetheless, the translations I quoted came from people who have studied the Quran and made translations based on the context, history, language of the Quran itself.

Yours have no support whatsoever from anyone here and elsewhere and I wonder if you quote your ridiculous translations based on your agenda to discredit whatever is Islam.

 

[hime]

Join Islam?... why on earth would I do such a thing...

Sura 10.37 وما كان هذا القرءان أن يفترى من دون الله ولكن تصديق الذي بين يديه وتفصيل الكتب لا ريب فيه من رب العلمين
Arabic: Wama kana hatha alqur-anu an yuftara min dooni Allahi walakin tasdeeqa allathee bayna yadayhi watafseela alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

Translation: And that this was "something is missing here" the collection, that fabricated one, from superior (to) “allah”, and but (a) confirmation (of) Him in His presence, and explaining The Book, no doubt in it, from the lord of the jinn and of mankind.

LOL.....sorry but that's really funny

I am sure you have no idea in Arabic. Look at the parts I colored in RED
there is no way that Ayah will translated that way. The word Wama is using for refute....in other word it means NOT. Go and ask any Arab and he will tell you the meaning of the that word.

the part in Ayah that I said there is something missing here should be written as NOT

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There can never be a 100% accurate translations from one language to another. Nonetheless, the translations I quoted came from people who have studied the Quran and made translations based on the context, history, language of the Quran itself.

Yours have no support whatsoever from anyone here and elsewhere and I wonder if you quote your ridiculous translations based on your agenda to discredit whatever is Islam.

I could also say we have that same problem with the multitudes of Translations of the Christian OT and NT of the Bible.
The Hebrew is especially difficult to translate into English for example.

 

[humblemuslim]

Acceptable to Islam and Arabs perhaps... but I know and YOU know it can be translated other ways. The new translations make more sense.

The Koran consists of paraphrased translations from the Holy Bible... the Book (alkitabi)... makes sense as a fabrication....

(43,2-3) "And the Book, the clear/evident. Certainly we have made it an Arabic Koran, perhaps you comprehend."

I certainly hope you are not making the rookie mistake of generalizing that all muslims are Arabs or that most muslims are Arabs. Far too often do I find people making this mistake...

But I'll assume you did not mean this (And if you did you've been educated on the matter).

I fail to see the validity in criticizing the translations of native speakers of the language being translated. Yes there are numerous ways to translate a text. Semantically several translations can be "Correct". Yet, sometimes the word choice can impact the interpretation of the text to the point where natives of the translated text will misunderstand what the original states, or even worse will read a completely wrong translation.

Best case scenario: If someone is so interested in what the text actually says then read the original language. Of course most of the people that criticize the Qur'an are too lazy to take on such a hurdle. Plus it is much easier to criticize imperfect translations by playing on the word choices of the translators. One does not have to be an expert in Arabic to gain a deeper understanding of the original text. There are plenty of good resources out there compiled by non-muslims. Take Lane's lexicon as an example. I have even found word by word translations of the Arabic text. Not to mention the numerous translations that can sometimes offer better insight to the true meaning of the original. Yet, often times people don't even bother reading multiple translations.

One other thing. I do not care what the text is, two hundred people can read it and walk away with 200 different impressions and understandings of the text, whether religious in nature or not. And it is not uncommon for the reading to be affected by the mentality of the person as they read it. For example say a person loves the Bible, so when they read it everything looks wonderful. But they hate/dislike/distaste other religious scriptures, so while reading them they nit-pick every little word and view it in the worse of lights. And the amusing thing is every person will declare with absolute certainly that there understanding is infallible.

 

[ApplePie7]

There can never be a 100% accurate translations from one language to another. Nonetheless, the translations I quoted came from people who have studied the Quran and made translations based on the context, history, language of the Quran itself.

Yours have no support whatsoever from anyone here and elsewhere and I wonder if you quote your ridiculous translations based on your agenda to discredit whatever is Islam.

Here’s a bit more context showing how the authors of the Koran openly admit that they converted previous scripture into Arabic…

والكتب المبين إنا جعلنه قرءنا عربيا لعلكم تعقلون وإنه في أم الكتب لدينا لعلي حكيم​

Waalkitabi almubeeni inna jaAAalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona wa-innahu fee ommi alkitabi ladayna laAAaliyyun hakeemun

And The Book, the clear. Truly we have made it an Arabic collection, perhaps you comprehend. And truly it, in company with the source, from The Book, eminent, full of wisdom. (43.2 – 4)



These ayahs openly confess that the Holy Bible (alkitabi) was converted into (jaAAalnahu) an Arabic collection (Koran).

The authors’ even go so far as to ask if you can comprehend what has taken place.

Finally, they even state that this converted Koranic collection is in company with its source, the Holy Bible.

Thus, when the Koran proclaims all the Biblical things such as Jesus Christ being singularly crucified until death upon the Cross, and then singular resurrected three days later, and that he is the Son, etc, etc….followers of islam should not get all bent out of shape, as this is what is written in the Arabic of their book of faith.

 

[Montalban]

There can never be a 100% accurate translations from one language to another.

Then how can anyone learn properly Arabic if one wants to convert to Islam in order to read it in its 'original' language?

It's one of the strangest paradoxes Moslems want to foster.*

I take it then that al-Lah spoke Arabic to Gabriel because Gabriel spoke it to Muhammed and that Gabriel didn't want to lose anything in the translation so passed it on in the language his god spoke.



*-If I 'reverted' to Islam and go to learn Arabic then any time I get word "X" in Arabic or phrase "Y" in Arabic it's always going to be in my mind that the English equal for it is "X(in English)" or "Y(in English)" thus I can never fully know the Koran as it's meant to be because I wasn't born speaking Arabic.

And of course no Arabic speaker can properly convey the 'truth' of the Koran to non-Arabic speakers.

 

[Montalban]

I certainly hope you are not making the rookie mistake of generalizing that all muslims are Arabs or that most muslims are Arabs. Far too often do I find people making this mistake...

But according to rules on translation as pushed by your co-religionists, these non-Arabs can never fully know the Koran's 'truth' if they weren't born Arabic speakers.

 

[Montalban]

Go and ask any Arab and he will tell you the meaning of the that word.

Can non-Arab Moslems be asked the same thing?

 

[SanFrank]

LOL.....sorry but that's really funny

I am sure you have no idea in Arabic. Look at the parts I colored in RED
there is no way that Ayah will translated that way. The word Wama is using for refute....in other word it means NOT. Go and ask any Arab and he will tell you the meaning of the that word.

the part in Ayah that I said there is something missing here should be written as NOT

It can be taken as "that"

 

[dewaddict84]

any time I get word "X" in Arabic or phrase "Y" in Arabic it's always going to be in my mind that the English equal for it is "X(in English)" or "Y(in English)"

Actually, if you learn a language and use it enough eventually you'll start thinking in the language too. It eventually bypasses the translation to English. So when a religion debate comes up, you think of allah rather then (or in addition to) god. That one word being the grand sum total of my arabic knowledge. I actually don't know if that hedges out the old language, I doubt you'll ever forget a native tongue, but in terms of brain wiring.

 

[Montalban]

Actually, if you learn a language and use it enough eventually you'll start thinking in the language too. It eventually bypasses the translation to English. So when a religion debate comes up, you think of allah rather then (or in addition to) god. That one word being the grand sum total of my arabic knowledge. I actually don't know if that hedges out the old language, I doubt you'll ever forget a native tongue, but in terms of brain wiring.

No. You mean that after a while I don't have to think out "Word "X"(English) is word "X"(Arabic)" because it comes 'naturally' insofar as you automatically know what the words are. However one still has to go through that stage.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Actually, if you learn a language and use it enough eventually you'll start thinking in the language too. It eventually bypasses the translation to English. So when a religion debate comes up, you think of allah rather then (or in addition to) god. That one word being the grand sum total of my arabic knowledge. I actually don't know if that hedges out the old language, I doubt you'll ever forget a native tongue, but in terms of brain wiring.

Indeed. What people need to understand is that languages are not just labels we attach to external objects, but self-contained, self-referential systems that greatly influence the way we perceive the external world. Language shapes the way we think, the way we put things into relation to each other, as well as the way we perceive these things to begin with.
Take the colour scale, for example: the boundaries between one colour and the next are pretty much arbitrary, and differ greatly from language to language. If memory serves, the Welsh language has no word for "grey", for example. That part of the scale is distributed between two other colours, roughly translated as "blue" and "green", but differing from both of these English concepts.

Thus, translations always miss some of the original content, and more likely than not add something of their own - and that even applies to the most literal translation possible. Basically, you are transferring the text into a completely different frame of reference - another way of perceiving and interpreting the universe.

(And a little piece of trivia on the side: when missionaries tried to establish Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England, they basically had to invent new terms and concepts just to communicate what they were trying to say. For example, the Anglo-Saxon language didn't contain a word for "pride", as self-confidence and bravery were highly cherished virtues in that warrior culture. Thus, they constructed the neologism "ofermod", literally meaning something like "excessive bravery".)

 

[humblemuslim]

But according to rules on translation as pushed by your co-religionists, these non-Arabs can never fully know the Koran's 'truth' if they weren't born Arabic speakers.

And that supports the position that native speakers are somehow insufficient and/or biased translators? There is an edge native speakers have over people who learn the language later in life.

I would, however, not agree with the fantastic claim that a person not of native tongue is incapable of properly understanding the Arabic text given enough study of the language.

Regardless, all translations are imperfect and should be read with caution. Native speaker translator or not. Different languages do not translate one to one, as any person who has learned another language can attest to.

Even worse is the fact that even if a text is read by several native speakers in the original language that does not guarantee everyone will agree on a universal understanding. People are bound to disagree on what the text means. The more important the text, the more strafe over the smallest detail.

Which is why I tend to stay away from interpretation arguments as best I can. In my experience, pure interpretation arguments boil down to "I am right and you are wrong" on both sides. A meaningless pursuit. It is easier to just let everyone decide for themselves what they believe the honest rendering/understanding of the text is.

Although it becomes rather suspicious when people who hate the text to begin with magically come to a rather grim and dark understanding. The same could be said of those who love it to begin with. Which leaves each person to fend for themselves. Trust no one, lest you be swayed by their temperament.

 

[dewaddict84]

Montalban

No. You mean that...

No, I do mean it. You actually start to THINK in the second language.

Take the colour scale, for example

Actually, that's not the best example. It turns out that there is a specific light frequency that the cones in our eye register as the most red. They took a number of shades of red to various untouched tribes and asked (in their own language) which was the "reddest", and most of them picked straight red. So no, the human perception of color is more objective then one would assume. Your main message about detail being lost in translation still stands however. Like the greeks having multiple words for different types of love, but it's all just "love" in english.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban

No, I do mean it. You actually start to THINK in the second language.

Which is simply to repeat yourself.

You 'think' in the second language only because it becomes 'automatic' in that you don't have to stop and think "How do I say "X"(English) as "X"(Arabic)"

You still have to learn it, and there is the problem for those who make special claims about Arabic

Actually, that's not the best example. It turns out that there is a specific light frequency that the cones in our eye register as the most red. They took a number of shades of red to various untouched tribes and asked (in their own language) which was the "reddest", and most of them picked straight red. So no, the human perception of color is more objective then one would assume. Your main message about detail being lost in translation still stands however. Like the greeks having multiple words for different types of love, but it's all just "love" in english.

I understand this. And the Eskimo (Innuit) have words for different types of snow.

But when the Greeks use a single word, say "Agape" we know that "Agape" means "selfless love".

It took more English words to say it, but it doesn't loose anything because we can still use a number of English words to describe what the single word means in Greek.

Nothing is lost.

 

[Montalban]

And that supports the position that native speakers are somehow insufficient and/or biased translators? There is an edge native speakers have over people who learn the language later in life.

Which is illogical.

I want to translate the Koran from Arabic to English.

I get a 'native speaking' Arab speaker - whom you say has an 'edge'.

Is he also a native English speaker? If not, then he looses his edge because according to you he doesn't know English as well, and therefore can't properly find the English equal for the Arabic word he know so well.

 

[Montalban]

Indeed. What people need to understand is that languages are not just labels we attach to external objects, but self-contained, self-referential systems that greatly influence the way we perceive the external world. Language shapes the way we think, the way we put things into relation to each other, as well as the way we perceive these things to begin with.
Take the colour scale, for example: the boundaries between one colour and the next are pretty much arbitrary, and differ greatly from language to language. If memory serves, the Welsh language has no word for "grey", for example. That part of the scale is distributed between two other colours, roughly translated as "blue" and "green", but differing from both of these English concepts.

As noted in reply to someone else, we still have, in English the means of translating these words.

In English we have the word 'valley'. In Scotland they have two words that describe different types of valley. They have 'strath' meaning 'wide valley' and 'glenn' meaning 'narrow valley'

However note that I just used the English language to properly translate both Gaelic words... only I had to use two words 'wide' and 'valley' to describe what 'strath' does using only one word.

Nothing was lost in translation.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

As noted in reply to someone else, we still have, in English the means of translating these words.

In English we have the word 'valley'. In Scotland they have two words that describe different types of valley. They have 'strath' meaning 'wide valley' and 'glenn' meaning 'narrow valley'

However note that I just used the English language to properly translate both Gaelic words... only I had to use two words 'wide' and 'valley' to describe what 'strath' does using only one word.

Nothing was lost in translation.

And yet, your perception differs from that of a native speaker of Scottish Gaelic - to you, it's two types of valley; to a Scot (supposing that he didn't speak and think English), it's two different concepts. And note that these are not very abstract ideas - the gap grows considerably the more you move into the realm of ideas.

 

[humblemuslim]

Which is illogical.

I want to translate the Koran from Arabic to English.

I get a 'native speaking' Arab speaker - whom you say has an 'edge'.

Is he also a native English speaker? If not, then he looses his edge because according to you he doesn't know English as well, and therefore can't properly find the English equal for the Arabic word he know so well.

In Amman Jordan they teach English, Arabic, and French in grade school. It would not be impossible to find someone who has been exposed to both English and Arabic from childhood.

There is no reason why someone could not be taught a multitude of languages early in their life. The above is a just an example I am familiar with.