View Full Version : Dangerous Translation
Salaam Alaikum,
Relating to my question on 4.157, Dr Quaisar quoted the Noble Qur'an saying
And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not.
I far as I see it, there is a huge danger here. It says, "resemblence" but Ali, Pickthall, and Shakir all say "it appeared so (that he was killed)." Either all three of these are wrong, or the Noble Qur'an translation is. You may say they're saying the same thing, but they're not. A good chunk of Muslims believe there was no Shabih, instead Jesus swooned. If the Noble Qur'an is correct here, then they're all wrong. Yet I've never seen any of their opponents claim that they're wrong based on translation.
My point is, the Noble Qur'an translators were inserting their own beliefs into the Qur'an, making it seem as if Jesus definitely ascended before the crucifixion, not after, as some Muslims say. It may or may not have been on purpose. It may have just been to make the verse easier to understand. Nevertheless, it was still helps readers read something which isn't really there.
I just thought it was something to be warned about. I know that reading this translation of 4.157, I can't help but wonder, "Are translators mistranslating other ayahs as well? Perhaps ones that are more important than the details of a prophet's life 2000 years ago?"
Indeed, it's something for everyone to ponder.
JBJ
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-04-02 AT 05:11 PM (GMT)]Salam JBJ.....
I just checked the Noble Quraan and do not see a problem with relating it to the arabic... the arabic words are "shobeha lahom" which translates to: it seemed, or it resembled to them etc. in here they say:
but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man),
the part in brackets is the extra things.... muslims are all in agreement of the story of Isa. So this would be just fine in my opinion
we have explained 100s of times that the english is simply the meaning of the verses and not the verses themselves!! thus, as long as the meaning is correct, the translation is correct.
Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Shakir were probably translating word by word... which is better of course... this still doesn't make the noble quraan wrong... we have been studying the quraan in university (me and my other muslim sisters) and we use an arabic quraan, the tafsir, plus the Noble quraan in our studies... we have not found mistakes in it....everything agrees with what we said. so... simple use of words is personal choice of the author and this is why we refuse to say quraan is in any language except Arabic... its the only exact version.... this is also why many who revert chose to learn arabic so they can read the quraan.
I do not know what u mean by muslims not believing in a shabih to Isa... I think muslims do believe that Jesus was raised and there was a shabih to him.... who exactly do u mean when u say a chunk of muslims?? any particular sects???
again.... the only actual quraan is in arabic... the rest is simply a translation of the meanig.
peace
Rasha
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-04-02 AT 03:52 PM (GMT)]Dear JBJ:
We were to remove your message. We think an adequate response has been given by Sr Rasha. I am warning you - we don't tolerate direct or indirect preachings of other religions, and it's obvious from your most recent posts that you're using Islamic terms to attacks Islam.
Tayeb
>
>I far as I see it, there is a huge danger here. It says,
>"resemblence" but Ali, Pickthall, and Shakir all say "it
>appeared so (that he was killed)." Either all three of
>these are wrong, or the Noble Qur'an translation is. You
>may say they're saying the same thing, but they're not. A
>good chunk of Muslims believe there was no Shabih, instead
>Jesus swooned. If the Noble Qur'an is correct here, then
>they're all wrong. Yet I've never seen any of their
>opponents claim that they're wrong based on translation.
>>>
Actually the translators of the Noble Qur'an are putting more of their accepted understanding of events rather than the litteral arabic. So when you read it you are not only getting a translation but also their interpretation, more like tafsir than anything else.
Their translation i believe is confusing, and imo is one of the worst translations out there because it is not simply a translation.. it is interpretation which gives a view the translators agree on, but not nesecarily represenative of all muslims.. nor represenative of Allah's litteral words.
>My point is, the Noble Qur'an translators were inserting
>their own beliefs into the Qur'an, making it seem as if
>Jesus definitely ascended before the crucifixion, not after,
>as some Muslims say. It may or may not have been on
>purpose. It may have just been to make the verse easier to
>understand. Nevertheless, it was still helps readers read
>something which isn't really there.
>>>
It also makes the readers believe it is Allah who said that someone was put on the cross in place of Isa pbuh which was incorrect (of course i explained all this before under your other thread)
>I just thought it was something to be warned about. I know
>that reading this translation of 4.157, I can't help but
>wonder, "Are translators mistranslating other ayahs as well?
> Perhaps ones that are more important than the details of a
>prophet's life 2000 years ago?"
>
Their not "mistranslating" they are interpreting.. not just translating and this is where the confusion lies. Their translation and interpretation is based on their accepted view and this should be made more clear to the readers in order to avoid confusion.
Hi Tayeb,
I am not attacking Islam at all. Whatever the Noble Qur'an translates has nothing to do with what the Qur'an really says. The Noble Qur'an can translate anytyhing however it wants, that won't make Islam true or false. Certainly the translators cannot affect the truth of what was written 1400 years ago!
I am not attacking the translators either. As I said, It (the bad translation) may or may not have been on purpose. It may have just been to make the verse easier to understand. I did however question whether the Noble Qur'an translators mistranslated other ayat, but again, not necessarily on purpose.
I was not preaching my religion. If anything, I was giving voice to the view of the Ahmaddiyas. Whether or not one views that as part of Islam or not, doesn't concern me. As I've said before, my purpose on IWC isn't to spread my religion, it's to spread the truth. Part of that is questioning whether the Qur'an teaches the shabih or the swoon of Jesus. That doesn't involve me, I don't believe in either one as the absolute truth. Yet that doesn't keep either the shabih theory or the swoon theory from being the truth of what's taught in the Qur'an.
And if nothing else but curiosity, what I have I said recently that was attacking Islam? If you mean about 4.157 on Comparitive Religion, I wasn't attacking, I was simply asking the translation, which didn't have anything to do with the truth or falsity or the Qur'an.
It also seems Nzingha has not agreed that Rasha's explaination was adequate. Yet you won't accuse her of attacking Islam, will you? My point and hers is the same. I hope that you won't pick me out because you and I are of different faiths.
The rules say not to insult scholars, I haven't done that. The rules say not to preach non-Muslim beliefs, and I haven't done that. For these reasons I think that you should not delete this thread. I would at least suggest that you keep it long enough for other members to give their opinions on deletion. (Is that a word?) If you do delete it, it would appear that you're using you power to persecute an opinion of your Muslims sister as well as others who don't voice their opinion on IWC.
Do as you see fit, but I do suggest you ponder your action with care. Salam,
JBJ
Hi Rasha
The Ahamadiyyas and Ahmed Deedat both deny the existence of the shabih. I believe the NIO does too, but I'm not sure. If there was only one interpretation of what happened to Jesus, then it wouldn't really matter.
No, I don't think you're correct that this is a correct translation. This is how I know: the Noble Qur'an has the translated word "man" yet no other translations (at least that I've looked up) contain this word. So all one has to do is look at the Qur'an in Arabic and find whether "man" is there or not." Secondly, "resemblance" is a noun while "was likened" has no noun. So one can simply look at the Arabic and see if there is a noun form there.
Not knowing Arabic, the Noble Qur'an may be right, but that would make Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Shakir all incorrect. Either way the Noble Qur'an allows one interpretation of the shabih, the others allow the swoon theory also. So some Muslims allow different ideas to be seen than other Muslims.
JBJ
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 16-04-02 AT 08:13 PM (GMT)]Hello JBJ
It's not because you are not a Muslim. What is wrong, is wrong. If anyone does or says something wrong, then action will be taken.
Brother Tayeb has not given you a warning without consultation. It is after our (the moderators) voicing concerns over some of your recent posts, that he has decided to intervene.
The message in which he gave you a warning, does not specifically concern this particular post of yours, but more.
The Ahmadiyya (Qaadianis) are non Muslims. Plz do not preach their views anywhere on IWC. We will not allow anyone to preach the views of Qaadianis on this site.
Bye,
Asif.
as salaam alaikum
our disagreements aside, I do wish you would take the time to rephrase your post you make it appear as if I'm ahmadiyya which I'm not.
I would also disagree that what I have stated is incorrect. It is true that what Khan and Halali give is a interpretation rather than a litteral translation. It is true that there are different opinions amoung muslim scholars on the events of Isa pbuh and how they interpret when Allah says it was made to appear to them as if he had died.
that aside I must say i don't like what is going on on this thread.. and i wish people would refrain from using me as some twisted example for their cause.
ma salaam
nzingha
I will not reply to the correctness of the translation or such...but I think that Sis Nzingha you are falling into the trap... the none believers want us to be devided.... In Ibn Kathir it says this is the most accurate translation. This doesn't make the Noble quraan wrong.
anyways... I won't go further into the matter but come to think of it... us disagreeing and fighting is what non believers want... we must not allow that.
It certainly is better to translate Quraan word by word... no one said its wrong not to! Its a personal preference.
>
>The Ahamadiyyas and Ahmed Deedat both deny the existence of
>the shabih. I believe the NIO does too, but I'm not sure.
>If there was only one interpretation of what happened to
>Jesus, then it wouldn't really matter. >>
Jbj.. the ahmadiyyas as well as the NOI are not a representative of the majority of Muslim thought.. in fact muslims they aren't. This is where one problem in your understanding this may lie.
Ahmadiyyas believe that their leader is Jesus returned, the mahdi and a messenger rolled into one. The NOI hold that Allah is a man name fard and Elijah muhammad was a messenger. Both of these groups hold many other beliefs that are in direct contradiction to the Islamic belief. To hold them as a source for Islamic understanding will only confuse you. It is like saying the Mormans are a good source to understand christian thought.
As for Ahmad Deedat I don't know much about his beliefs. So if you could provide a source on your statement about it may help to further resarch it.
>
>No, I don't think you're correct that this is a correct
>translation. This is how I know: the Noble Qur'an has the
>translated word "man" yet no other translations (at least
>that I've looked up) contain this word. So all one has to
>do is look at the Qur'an in Arabic and find whether "man" is
>there or not." Secondly, "resemblance" is a noun while "was
>likened" has no noun. So one can simply look at the Arabic
>and see if there is a noun form there.
>
It translating arabic were that simple there would be no problem.
but i'll try to break it down to you word by word
wa and
lakan but
shubbeha to make equal or similiar to, to liken, to resemble
lahum to them
subbeha is also a verb, which means the translation would be to make a resemblence or make something equal or similiar to liken something.
if you were to have a litteral translation this phrase it would be a bit confusing. One would have to translate it in correct english grammar as well.
Again I have mentioned that there are differences of opinion when it comes to muslim scholars. As to what is meant by causing an appearnce to them (those that thought they killed/crucified Isa pbuh) and also what is meant by the next verse in which Allah says he raised him up to Himself. Khan and Hilali take an abvious position on their interpretation.
as salaam alaikum
>but I think that Sis Nzingha you are falling into
>the trap... the none believers want us to be devided.... In
>Ibn Kathir it says this is the most accurate translation.
>This doesn't make the Noble quraan wrong.
>>>
Sister I don't see a trap anywhere by giving information that is correct. Which is there is a difference of opinion in regards to what is meant by Allah's words. Ibn Kathir had his position.. fine and dandy that doesn' discredit other muslim scholars positions. But it is not a translationg, it is an interpretation, two totally differen things.
Disagreements on Islamic issues doesn't necessarily divide sister, for if that were the case we were divided long before.
Assalamu Alaikum dear sister !
"our disagreements aside, I do wish you would take the time to rephrase your post you make it appear as if I'm ahmadiyya which I'm not."
I do sincerely apologize if that is the impression you got from my post. I really had no such intention. I know very well that you are not a Qaadiani (Ahmadiyya). Plz inform me where you want me to make the changes. I shall do so, Insha Allah.
"I would also disagree that what I have stated is incorrect. It is true that what Khan and Halali give is a interpretation rather than a litteral translation. It is true that there are different opinions amoung muslim scholars on the events of Isa pbuh and how they interpret when Allah says it was made to appear to them as if he had died."
Dear sister, i did not make any comment about what you said. Neither did i say that what you said is wrong. Nor did i say that what you said is correct.
I said : "What is wrong, is wrong. If sister Nzingha, me or you (or anyone else) do or say something wrong, then action will be taken."
I meant that as a general statement. Not specifically about this thread. It was to inform everyone, that if something wrong is said or done, action will be taken.
"that aside I must say i don't like what is going on on this thread.. and i wish people would refrain from using me as some twisted example for their cause."
I am sorry that i had to use your name. I only did that because JBJ had used you as an example. I have editted my message, and removed your name from there.
Wassalam,
Asif.
Salaam Nzingha,
I'm not confused about what Muslims believe at all, I just used the Ahmadiyyas and Deedat as examples of those who believe in the Qur'an while rejecting the shabih theory. The NOI and Ahmadiyyas are definitely not in line with the Qur'an, not regarding this as far as I know, but with other things like prophets after Muhammad.
But just because most of a cult is wrong (cult is the word used for Mormons and I'd think for NOI, etc) doesn't make every belief necessarily wrong too. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses, another Christian cult, put importance the personal name of God used in the Bible, which I agree with. That's why I think the swoon theory should be given an ear to, instead of denouncing it only because Sunnis and shias do. There are reasons to discredit the swoon, but not because it's the popular thing to do. Every belief should have facts behind it. (I hope this isn't interpreted as being "preachy".)
Ahmed Deedat was the biggest name in comparitive religion on the Muslim side until his recent death, but perhaps he still is the biggest. He believes in the entire Qur'an but rejects the shabih. He believes in the swoon theory, the idea that Jesus swooned on the cross (kinda like fainting) and woke up a few days later. He writes about it here, http://www.sharif.org.uk/cc.htm He did a debate with a Christian that's popular among Muslims discussing that work, http://www.cyberislam.com/literature/comprel/debate.html
I admire your knowledge of Arabic, but I'm a bit puzzled. "shubbeha" makes sense, but can't you just look for the word "man" in the Arabic and see if it's there? I'd seriously like to know, just because I enjoy picking up tidbits of language info.
Thanks and salaam,
JBJ
the word "man" is not in there.
Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.
Greetings and good day to all.
I am still reading thru the replies on this thread...and I have opted to post my response now, because I have to be getting ofline soon, and may not be able to complete reading all of the responses before my time is up here. I may have another reply when I have complete reading the rest. Don't know yet.
Either way, I must respond to your claim, JBJ, of the belief of some muslims on this issue.
To backtrack firstly, let me expand slightly on the translation of the meaning of the verse in question, and it is no necessarily understood to mean that there was a replacement set in place of Jesus on the cross, although some interpretations do indicate that to be the understanding. Yet the exact arabic:
'...wa ma salabuuhu wa lakin shubihu lahum', which can be translated to mean: 'they did not crucify him, but it was made to appear so.' Allah knows best.
Now...this is something which is in the Quran, and as one of the sisters previously mentioned, we take it all, and believe in it all without question, for we accept the Quran as Allah's word and message.
For one to reject or question the validity of this, then it would be damaging to their very existence and acceptance as a muslim.
In respects to those who you have claimed as not accepting this, naming the Ahmediys, the NOI, and Ahmed Deedat...have you interviewed those individuals to know their stance on this? Can you verify your claim?
The Ahmediys, and the NOI, because of their basic inclination and action of believing in a prophet after Mohammed(SAAW) have ceased from remaining within the folds of Islam. This is not my own declaration or my own judgement, but based on what has been revealed in the Quran, telling us that Mohammed(SAAW) is the final of all messengers...to be no prophet(SAAW) after him. Those declaring prophethood are of the false prophets, and are committing great sin in attempting to lead people astray. And those who have opted to deny and ignore the directives and message of the Quran, are also making a grave sin for omitting and rejecting that which the Quran tells us.
As for Ahmed Deedat, I seriously doubt that he is of those who reject the message of this ayat(verse), basically because of my knowledge of his method of preaching and his many dialogues and discussions and debates on this very topic.
If you wish, I suggest that you look into several articles on this very topic by Ahmed Deedat, which can be located at:
http://www.jamaat.net/crux/Crux1-5.html
and
http://www.islamworld.net/res.html
For more links to Ahmed Deedat's lectures and various papers, click onto www.islamworld.net, and scroll down the page till you get to the 'comparative religion' section. You will find many links for Ahmed Deedat, as well as many more.
Just a friendly warning of advice, JBJ: beware of declaring upon someone this or that belief, unless you can surely verify it. It is a terrible thing to falsely claim something of someone.
Thankyou.
Lulua.
I heard from a source that Ahmed Deedat is still alive.
>I heard from a source that Ahmed Deedat is still alive.
That's interesting. I heard he had passed away from a Muslim friend.
JBJ
the word "man" is not in there.
Thanks Rasha.
JBJ
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.