RSS Feed
  • On atrocious English and Arabic translation of “dhalika”

    An interesting polemic that has been lodged by a Christian missionary in a Facebook comment recently:

    Response:

    “I think this phrase of “go at each others’ throats” should be more appropriate to use between Sunni and Sh’ia”: Very sneaky of you to attack the Muslims indirectly, while at the same time gloss over the dispute between the Catholics and Protestants, not to mention the brutal wars they have fought against each other in Europe in the past. So that phrase is more applicable to you and your brethren, since the Sunni / Shi’a dispute has never resulted in major wars between each other.

    “On Jesus and Isa, do you know, how this ‘Isa’ name in Arabic come from?”: Please don’t bore me with that stale story about it coming from Esau, the rejected brother of Jacob. That is a common polemic which I have heard too many times from ignorant Christian missionaries such as yourself. Suffice to say that the origins of the word ‘Isa is Aramaic and it is much more accurate than the atrocious Hebrew name “Yeheshua” which you attribute to Jesus, son of Mary.

    “On “Beloved of God”, I think it is a diluted translation of the complete meaning of the Biblical “Son of God”. However, ‘Beloved’ is part of the meaning in the understanding of the Biblical “Son of God”. Having to say that, I think the translation ‘Beloved Son who comes from Allah” is a good translation and faithful to the Biblical understanding.”: Now I am very sure that you have not read the article [referring to this link posted on Facebook about Christian missionaries and their deception – MENJ], because there is a whole section dedicated to this (faulty) translation, which relates how the clergy and pastors opposed this translation to such an extent that in the end, the booklet with this translation was forced to be withdrawn from circulation. Apparently your fellow clergy and pastors disagree with your assessment, i.e. that it is “a good translation and faithful to the Biblical understanding”, which is definitely not the case here.

    Regarding your polemic regarding “dhalika”, I showed it to two brothers in Islam who knows Arabic and both said the same thing: that you are an idiot and that you do not know Arabic. You are unqualified to comment in your atrocious command of English, let alone Arabic. Firstly, the Qur’an is not translated, the MEANING is translated. So just because Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Asad, etc. translate the meaning of Al-Baqarah, verse 2, with slightly different sentences, it doesn’t deter from the MEANING that is conveyed from the original Arabic, which has never changed in 1400 years.

    In the case of “DHALIKAL-KITABU…” (literally, “That is the Book…”), translating it to “This is the Book…” does not result in an “Absolute Deception”, because when meanings are translated in English, you could say, “This is the book…” or “That is the book…” because translation is the the art of translating CONCEPTS, not words. An example is the phrase “Hadhihi’l- hirar” (literally “This cats”) because this is grammatically correct, but this must be translated as “These cats” because that is correct in English. Another phrase in Arabic is “Ana Ka-Dhalik” which properly translated, means “Me too”, but to an idiot who is learning Arabic from a lexicon, he may think that it means “I am like that”. LOL….

    So none of the translations you posted here are wrong, and all of them are conveying the right meaning (in the best possible way) in English and BM. I can hardly say the same for the issue regarding “Son of God” / “Blessed by God”….two different phrases affecting doctrine altogether and you think this is a “good translation”. I think you should first correct your understanding of English and write proper grammar in that language before trying to make comments about Arabic.

    10 May

    1 Comment »

    1. Regarding the word 'zaalika' in 'zaalika al-kitab …' I heard a lecture by Nouman Ali Khan in Youtube saying that it is referring the the Mother Book in Lauh al-Mahfuz – thus 'that book'.

      The word 'Qur'an' is the word that usually accompanied by the word 'haza' (referring to the context of zaalika al-kitaab) and when word 'kitaab' accompanied by 'haza' it is further accompanied by 'anzalnahu'.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWUy_luMq0Q minutes 21:13-24:13

      Comment by faizal — May 12, 2011 @ 12:00 am

    Leave a comment

  • Partners

    WordPress › Error

    The site is experiencing technical difficulties.