Q9:33 and al-Tabari and the imperialism of the Arabs and its victims

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jun 24, 2012 at 07:01

Plato wrote

Hello DNM,

Hi Plato

I found your translation of 9:33 interesting.

This is the way I would read it and notice that without really having command of Syriac what the Qur'an is really saying is beyond translation

I also posted a review of what al-Tabari said about these few words li-yuzhirah 3ala al-deen kullihi and he says and I quote: wa ikhtalafa ahl al-ta'weel read this as the ulama had no clue about what this few words really means! and when you read this expression by al-Tabari it means that there are mistakes in grammar or syntax or even worse no one has a clue what these words really mean as in the case of the word al-samad in Q112 which has no meaning

Now you tell me why should we believe the shameful translations of Muslims when al-Tabari is saying that no one has a clue what this few words mean and I posted this post with what al-Tabari is saying

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/196582

So he gives us four readings or meanings for these few words and it is very clear that these views mean that no one has a clue what these few words really mean and that it very well could have something with Jesus being made "manifest"!

What a disaster

Oh and he also tells us that the subject in the aya or al-mushrikuun are really the Meccan polytheists and the Jews! So you draw your own conclusion

The Arabic word which Saheem's translation has gives as 'domination'

Saheem and if he is reading this he is ignorant and no more than a victim of Arabian imperialism and he need to get a life, have a hoby, adopt a pet be it dog or cat and read a real book and leave islam and be free from the Arabs and their imperialism

And the word domination in Arabic is saa'id and you will not find it in the aya as the word in the aya is from yizhar or to make manifest and this is indeed this how al-Tabari reads it

However this part of the aya is a linguistic mess as one can read the word al-deen in the singular and it cannot be plural and the word al-deen does not mean religion (religion in Arabic means mella) the word deen is a loan word from Syriac and Hebrew and it means interpretation or to judge (of scripture)

seems to vary with translators. The Hilali-Muhsin Khan translation translates it as 'superior'

The word superior in Arabic is a3zam which you will not find it in the aya which means that Hilali et-al are making things up and it is not even what al-Tabari is saying

and Azad has this convoluted translation: 'to prevail over all [false] religion'.

Shameful translation but what do you expect from a tablighee

And notice that in Yusuf Ali's shameful translation he tells us that it means

To proclaim it over all religion

Really? But to give him some credit he is reading the word al-deen in the singular and you tell me is this really a kitab mubeen or clear book when these three translations are very different

This means the Koran cannot be made clear in any language other than Arabic

Even in Arabic it is a confused and confusing book, and case in point this little aya, it is no more than poor literature and it is full of mistakes in grammar and spelling of Arabic words and disjointed sentences and strange words and many foreign words

You cannot translate the Qur'an and get it without vast knowledge of the languages of the late antique Middle East and on top of the list would be Syriac and do you think that Hilai et-al or Azad do have any command of Syriac? I doubt it very much

so as you keep emphasising Islam is only for the Hijazi Arabs. Non-Arab Muslims are victims of spiritual imperialism of the Arabs.

They for sure are no more than victims of the biggest literary fraud in the history of humanity

Regards

Plato

Thank you and keep on posting and they read what we kuffar write and they do not like it and even if we can reach one that would be more than plenty

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".