Translation & Muslims

[S.A.M.]

SAM, you've lost it. You are not reading other's posts, you are not refuting anything, you are not contributing to this thread.

We are talking translation and interpretation, remember? Start another thread if you are so interested in Sura 9. Personally, I wouldn't go there.

And I'm talking about reading something before translating or interpreting. Or do you just skip the part where you read a book before attempting to interpret it?

The reason I keep asking you about Sura 9 is because it is most often quoted by people who are asking questions like you. I want to know if any of those asking questions have even read the complete sura or understood what it means. For a long time there was a poster here who kept referring to its title as The Sword. When in fact Sura 9 is titled repentance (At-Tawbah).

I find it incredible that those asking questions feel they are equipped to do so without even bothering to read the whole Quran.

 

[(Q)]

I find it incredible that those asking questions feel they are equipped to do so without even bothering to read the whole Quran.

Are you daft? People here HAVE read the Quran in it's entirety. That is the exactly the point, sam. But, it's propagandists like you who won't accept any translation other than propagandized translations.

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you daft? People here HAVE read the Quran in it's entirety. That is the exactly the point, sam. But, it's propagandists like you who won't accept any translation other than propagandized translations.

You've read the whole Quran?

 

[(Q)]

You've read the whole Quran?

See, you haven't been reading my posts in the past. Proof positive.

 

[S.A.M.]

See, you haven't been reading my posts in the past. Proof positive.

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[Kadark]

Are you daft? People here HAVE read the Quran in it's entirety. That is the exactly the point, sam. But, it's propagandists like you who won't accept any translation other than propagandized translations.

I don't see where you're going with this. To my knowledge, Sam (and lots of other Muslims) can read the Qur'an's original Arabic structure, meaning there is no need for translations.

And if you cannot read Arabic, (Q), how do you know that the translated versions are "propagandized"?

 

[(Q)]

I don't see where you're going with this. To my knowledge, Sam (and lots of other Muslims) can read the Qur'an's original Arabic structure, meaning there is no need for translations.

Except, for those who can't read Arabic.

And if you cannot read Arabic, (Q), how do you know that the translated versions are "propagandized"?

They are propagandized on the premise that Muslim apologists are continuously moving the goalposts when it comes to interpreting the violence and oppression that is apparent in Muslim states, and claiming that it isn't initiated by the Quran.

 

[Kadark]

Except, for those who can't read Arabic.

You targetted Sam by saying "propagandists like you", when she can actually read Arabic. Being able to speak Arabic, she wouldn't have to rely on translations. I'm well aware that not everyone can read Arabic.

They are propagandized on the premise that Muslim apologists are continuously moving the goalposts when it comes to interpreting the violence and oppression that is apparent in Muslim states, and claiming that it isn't initiated by the Quran.

Whole other topic. We're discussing the actual verses in the Qur'an, and what it means to dissect the lines without having a collaborative understanding and knowledge of the book as a whole.

 

[(Q)]

Whole other topic. We're discussing the actual verses in the Qur'an, and what it means to dissect the lines without having a collaborative understanding and knowledge of the book as a whole.

Here's the OP, so it would appear to be on topic:

"Why is it that every time someone's like "Yo, Muslim dude, could you explain to me why this verse tells Muslims to kill all the Jews?" the Muslim's like "uh, yeah, which translation is that? Because the translator might be confusing the word 'kill' for something else."

 

[Kadark]

Here's the OP, so it would appear to be on topic:

"Why is it that every time someone's like "Yo, Muslim dude, could you explain to me why this verse tells Muslims to kill all the Jews?" the Muslim's like "uh, yeah, which translation is that? Because the translator might be confusing the word 'kill' for something else."

Considering that there is no verse in the Qur'an that remotely resembles the demand for a genocide of all Jews, I'd say the opening topic is obsolete.

 

[(Q)]

Considering that there is no verse in the Qur'an that remotely resembles the demand for a genocide of all Jews, I'd say the opening topic is obsolete.

Jews are considered non-believers, hence infidels. What exactly does the Quran say about infidels?

 

[Kadark]

Jews are considered non-believers, hence infidels. What exactly does the Quran say about infidels?

Wrong. Jews are considered People of the Book.

 

[invert_nexus]

I just looked up the Aramaic bible online and it says that the original name of God in the bible is not Yahweh but according to the book of Ezra (in the Aramaic Bible) it is Elaw (or Allah or Eloh)

Off topic: Elohim was the name of god for the northern tribes (if I recall correctly) which formed the Kingdom of Israel. Yahweh was the name used by the southern tribes (Judah and Benjamin) which formed the country of Judah.

Judah is the sole surviving tribe, yes? The only one to return from Babylon? The 10 tribes of Israel were lost in the Assyrian conquest even before Babylon.

I personally found it funny that Israel was accused of being the cause of God punishing the hebrews with the Assyrians. Because they were worshiping idols and doing stuff in the 'high places' and whatnot.

Anyway, the bible is an amalgam of different belief systems. This is why you often see the same story told several times differently.

Ezrah though... Wasn't that post Babylon? What was the name El being thrown around then for? Maybe nostalgia? Interesting.


On topic: Translation is harsh. Even in books which aren't so personal and apt to set large groups of people against each other. So, it's no surprise that there are translation difficulties in the Qu'ran. The Bible either, for that matter.

 

[S.A.M.]

Off topic: Elohim was the name of god for the northern tribes (if I recall correctly) which formed the Kingdom of Israel. Yahweh was the name used by the southern tribes (Judah and Benjamin) which formed the country of Judah.

Thats interesting, I did not know Judah and Israel were separate.

What were the differences between the two? Which one of them adopted the God of the Canaanites?

What is the significance of Babylon?

 

[(Q)]

Wrong. Jews are considered People of the Book.

So, the Quran DOESN'T criticize Jews for their refusal to recognize Muhammad as a prophet of God? I think it speaks rather harshly of this in the Quran, but the problem once again is in whose version of interpretation one follows and what actions have been taken or will take place that stand as evidence to the contrary.

 

[invert_nexus]

What were the differences between the two? Which one of them adopted the God of the Canaanites?

Neither. They each worshiped the same god, the Hebrew god, the God of Abraham. Just called him by different names. The extent of the differences between the tribes is unknown as only one tribe survives and it blames the other tribes for all the problems.

By the way, you knew that the Book of the Law was 'found' in the temple by a priest in the reign of Josiah, a very young king? The Book of the Law, by the way, is the Torah. And, apparently, prior to this the hebrews had been living rather sinfully. Seems awfully convenient to me.

"Hey, look what I found!"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 king 22&version=31

What is the significance of Babylon?

My theory based on my reading of the bible is that much of the old testament was actually nationalistic propaganda meant to pull the surviving jews together and give them something to grasp onto. Much of the bible (chronicles and kings especially) seems written in the past tense and then suddenly changes to the present tense after the return from exile.

Ezra was a nationalist. As were most of the prophets that followed. They told the history of the jewish people in such a way as to imbue them with a sense of pride which had failed them during their time as slaves.

Judaism and Christianity are based on slave mentality. An overturning of the established order making the weak strong. The masters into servants. Etcetera.

This is why the story of the Exodus from Egypt plays such a crucial role. It's an allegory for Babylon. And, in fact, may never have happened historically.

 

[invert_nexus]

What is the significance of Babylon?

Oh. But, I suppose you meant what is the significance in regards to El? Well, the Kingdom of Israel called god El so the name should have fallen into disuse by this time. The 10 tribes that composed Israel were scattered long before Babylon.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm I was under the impression that when the Israelis moved to Canaan they adopted the God of Canaan as their own.

For the Canaanites, El or Il was the supreme god, the father of mankind and all creatures. He may have been a desert god at some point as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. El had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yam and Mot, each share similar attributes to the Roman-Greco gods: Zeus, Poseidon and Hades respectively.

According to the pantheon, known in Ugarit as 'ilhm (=Elohim) or the children of El (cf. the Biblical "sons of God"), supposedly obtained by Philo of Byblos from Sanchuniathon of Berythus (Beirut) the creator was known as Elion (Biblical El Elyon = God most High), who was the father of the divinities, and in the Greek sources he was married to Beruth (Beirut = the city). This marriage of the divinity with the city would seem to have Biblical parallels too with the stories of the link between Melkart and Tyre; Yahweh and Jerusalem; Chemosh and Moab; Tanit and Baal Hammon in Carthage. El Elyon is mentioned as 'God Most High' occurs in Genesis 14.18–19 as the God whose priest was Melchizedek king of Salem.

From the union of El Elyon and his consort was born Uranus and Ge, Greek names for the "Heaven" and the "Earth". This closely parallels the opening verse of Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning Elohim gave birth to the Heaven (Shemayim) and the Earth (Eretz)", and this would appear to be based upon this early Canaanite belief. This also has parallels with the story of the Babylonian Anunaki (i.e. = "Heaven and Earth"; Shamayim and Erets) too.

 

[invert_nexus]

Oh. And on the topic of translation.
Here's an example from the bible.

Name one the 10 commandments.

 

[invert_nexus]

Hmm I was under the impression that when the Israelis moved to Canaan they adopted the God of Canaan as their own.

Well. It's possible. At the least, the mythos were likely mixed. Just as Allah of Islam is most likely mixed up with preexisting myths of the tribes in Arabia (or whatever the hell it was called back then.)

Note the fact of the late 'discovery' of the book of the Law.

Anyway. The true origins of the myths can't really be known because of the available evidence. We know about the northern tribes mostly from what is said of them by the surviving tribe of Judah who blamed them for the wrath of god.

Medicine Woman has an interesting notion that the Hebrews fleeing Egypt murdered Moses because he didn't want to stop the wandering.

Who knows? What we do know is that the stories passed down in myth don't really match archeological evidence except sparingly.