The Qur'an: hijacked tranlations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lapell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lapell

Guest
I just read in André Chouraqui’s book, Mon testament: Le feu de l’Alliance something very interesting about translations made of the Qur’an: a Robert de Kenton was asked to make a translation of it in latin. Now, according to Chouraqui, that translation was done in a way not very faithful to the original text, and the translator designed it to make the Muslims’ religion to look very, very bad, making it say terrible things that were not there in the original text, or about which there should be a few notes in mind.
Chouraqui himself, a Jew born in Algeria, is famous for a translation of the whole Bible (including the Deuterocanonical books AND the… New Testament, which for a Jew who has remained a Jew is quite a remarkable thing"! He apparently was the first Jew to ever have done a transltion of the NT), and also a translation of… the Qur’an, which was written in a form of the Arabic language quite close to the Hebrew language.
Now, having done a translation of it himself he sees nothing in it (get this, folks!) that would approve of the misbehaviours Islam as a religion is accused of condoning and even approving!
He goes on to accuse some of the Muslim country leaders and some imams who pervertly used the notion of jihad as a holy war against the infidels (quite spread in our usual superficial understanding of Muslim ways) rather than the original meaning of the word, simply to get away from sinful behaviours and follow the ways of the One true God…
I wish a translation of this book would exist in English, it would be a revelation to many, I am sure!..
 
I personally recommend Maulana Muhammad Ali’s translation: the commentary and notes provide a very useful background and context for the Qur’an.
 
Lapell, thanks for this interesting post. It would be interesting to read about his opinion on the Qur’an after doing the translation.

Is the author French or Canadian?

…
I prefer the Saheeh International translation. As far as English translations go, it is definitely the closest to the Arabic.
 
Why would anyone want to read a translation by a non-Muslim, when there are translations by Muslims available?

That doesn’t even make sense to me. :confused:
 
Sister_Amy said:
Why would anyone want to read a translation by a non-Muslim, when there are translations by Muslims available?

That doesn’t even make sense to me. :confused:
Click to expand...
Of course, if it were made by people from inside Islam, I guess the people would think it should be more reliable. But then if in their translations they used dictionaries based in good part on former translations, and these, especially the one in latin by Robert de Keaton (1147) and those that immediately followed were somehow biased and designed to make Islam look very bad, according to Chouraqui, whereas the original text that he had translated didn’t reveal anything that would allow Muslims to arbitrarily destroy their neighbours, Muslims and non-Muslims alike when read in their context! Nothing there to alter any of the Ten Commandments from the Torah, for instance.
Chouraqui says that the Arabic language of the times of Muhammad is closer to the Hebrew language than the modern Arabic is, and since both languages are Semitic languages, it enabled him to understand what the original text conveyed and truly meant.
The fact that this man is a Jew and that nevertheless he had such favorable impressions of the Coranic text, a non-Jewish religion, speaks volumes to me, and also the fact that his 1990 translation of the Qur’an took him years, which tells us of a serious, rigorous work. In my view, such a man is reliable and trustworthy.
 
That’s a good point, Lapell.

I wanted to tell you something. Arabic dictionaries were developed pretty quick after the Qur’an, because of the importance of the language. And in fact, I have heard that Jewish scholars have admitted to having to use Arabic dictionaries to understand their own scriptures, since there weren’t any Hebrew dictionaries.

Also, one of my Jewish friends told me that Arabs actually invented grammar–the marks over/under the letters. And thanks to the Arabic grammar, the Jews could apply that to the Torah. So now people who don’t know full Hebrew can still recite out of the Torah the way non-Arabs do to the Qur’an, with the vowel markings added to the consonant letters.
 
**and the translator designed it to make the Muslims’ religion to look very, very bad, **

**Translation is not necessary to make Mohametanism look bad. Mohametans do a good enough job on their own making themselves look bad.

I confess there is NO GOD but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and Jesus isd God Incarnate risen from the dead!**
 
Sister_Amy said:
Why would anyone want to read a translation by a non-Muslim, when there are translations by Muslims available?

That doesn’t even make sense to me. :confused:
Click to expand...
As long as one can translate, what difference does it make if a muslim, non muslim or ex muslim translated it?
I know your probably going to say well there is a certain understanding you need to have to be able to translate the quran, you have to understand the context and meaning behind it. But seriously, anyone can read a passage and understand the meaning.
 
dolphinlove said:
As long as one can translate, what difference does it make if a muslim, non muslim or ex muslim translated it?
I know your probably going to say well there is a certain understanding you need to have to be able to translate the quran, you have to understand the context and meaning behind it. But seriously, anyone can read a passage and understand the meaning.
Click to expand...
but that is the problem, the Qur’an is extremely hard to translate because there are many passages that are so vague/don’t make much sense in the original language.

Though there are certainly rough patches in other holy books, it is much easier to isolate the problems and analysis things like: the context, time period, general message, etc…to help solve the problem- you can’t do that with the Qu’ran.

Which is one area of contention I have with Islam, how am I supposed to take the Qu’ran as a universal revelation of God when it doesn’t reveal much outside (and inside) its original tongue. 🤷
 
Lapell said:
(Chouraqui) goes on to accuse some of the Muslim country leaders and some imams who pervertly used the notion of jihad as a holy war against the infidels (quite spread in our usual superficial understanding of Muslim ways) rather than the original meaning of the word, simply to get away from sinful behaviours and follow the ways of the One true God…
Click to expand...
If the Muslims don’t need bad translations to look bad, I think these people (a number of state leaders of countries where Muslims are the majority and a number of imams) are quite responsible for this state of things, alas! And they use Islam as an excuse for unacceptable misleading of their people and of course of the public opinion in the world. In other words, they ‘hijacked’ Islam to quench their urge for enslavering power over their people! From Chouraqui’s view of the situation, I think his point is worth being taken into consideration. It seems to me very, very plausible, to say the least.
 
the first translation of Quran was when? 1143 AC? After Muhammad’s death, the Caliphs began the futuhat (conquests) of the world. And by 732, the Islamic empire stretched from Spain to Western India…were all the conquests defensive or offensive?
 
inJESUS said:
the first translation of Quran was when? 1143 AC? After Muhammad’s death, the Caliphs began the futuhat (conquests) of the world. And by 732, the Islamic empire stretched from Spain to Western India…were all the conquests defensive or offensive?
Click to expand...
Well, I think you must know a thing or two about human nature. And there is no need for someone in power to have of a Sacred Book for him to act in a not so holy manner, is there? 😉
 
ALotLessThumb said:
but that is the problem, the Qur’an is extremely hard to translate because there are many passages that are so vague/don’t make much sense in the original language.

Though there are certainly rough patches in other holy books, it is much easier to isolate the problems and analysis things like: the context, time period, general message, etc…to help solve the problem- you can’t do that with the Qu’ran.

Which is one area of contention I have with Islam, how am I supposed to take the Qu’ran as a universal revelation of God when it doesn’t reveal much outside (and inside) its original tongue. 🤷
Click to expand...
As many reasons which can inspire a good number of people to hijack the whole of it for their selfish interests, can it not?
 
I can think of a very good reason to use a translation that a non-Muslim did. It is the point of the thread. A non-Muslim, assuming that they hold no anti-Islamic position, may translate the Qur’an free of any sectarian thoughts. Would you trust a translation from bin Laden more than one done by a non-Muslim who knows nothing about Islam other than the book in front of him?
 
ralphinal said:
I can think of a very good reason to use a translation that a non-Muslim did. It is the point of the thread. A non-Muslim, assuming that they hold no anti-Islamic position, may translate the Qur’an free of any sectarian thoughts. Would you trust a translation from bin Laden more than one done by a non-Muslim who knows nothing about Islam other than the book in front of him?
Click to expand...
Well, I think this reasoning is worthwhile, ralphinal! …Although you may want to be careful as some past translations made by non-Muslims were not so trustworthy…(De Kenton’s translation is an example, alas!) But in Chouraqui’s case, I am much more confident… I take it there exist equally trustworthy versions, though… I hope!!
 
Lapell said:
Well, I think this reasoning is worthwhile, ralphinal! …Although you may want to be careful as some past translations made by non-Muslims were not so trustworthy…(De Kenton’s translation is an example, alas!) But in Chouraqui’s case, I am much more confident… I take it there exist equally trustworthy versions, though… I hope!!
Click to expand...
Agreed. That is why I pointed out that the translator should not have an agenda.
 
ralphinal said:
I can think of a very good reason to use a translation that a non-Muslim did. It is the point of the thread. A non-Muslim, assuming that they hold no anti-Islamic position, may translate the Qur’an free of any sectarian thoughts. Would you trust a translation from bin Laden more than one done by a non-Muslim who knows nothing about Islam other than the book in front of him?
Click to expand...
Ralph, can you give me an example of how a sentence , by translation, changes from being anti-semitic to the opposite?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top