For B. Mustapha, and Rabina Musahil 'Alihu: Sohail (Rabina Yusahil Alaikum) and other sordid matters

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 31, 2006 at 18:15

I expected that Sohail will respond to my post so is your name Sohail too? So how do you fit in my dear Mustapha ? And do not forget that I'm not a Christian nor a Jew.

You wrote: "How can you ask bro (sic) Sohail to provide you with the original Hebrew or Aramaic (and you forgot Greek, and also Cotptic for the gnostic bibles) while what is given to us that filled our markets as a word of God is neither Hebrew nor Aramaic"

Is it the fault of the Jews and Christians that you have no access to the Bible in its original languages? Are you being lazy to find the Bible in its original languages?

So ya ayuha al-fayasoof al-kabeer, you do not even know your Arabic (remember your Alifun?) and even if you get a copy of the Bible in any of its primary sources, I very much doubt that you know Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Coptic. This must be, and you must pardon me, the most absurd comment that you have ever made. If you go to your madrassa's library or to your local book store I'm sure you will be able to get a copy of the Bible (or the Apocrypha which you can get on the web) in the various _primary languages_ of the bible. This comment is lame. And while we are at it stop reading Mr. Naik (only if you know what the Arabic word Naik means) because he is ignorant.

Then you wrote: "...what is given to us that filled our markets as the word of God is neither Hebrew nor Aramaic"

You are kidding me. You can get the Bible in all its primary language at least here in the west in any university. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and If you are talking about translations, your comment here betrays your total, and you must pardon me, ignorance of how to approach literary texts and translations of literary texyts. More later.

But let me remind you that I will bet you a buck that you must depend on some Urdu (or what ever) translation of your allah's book because it is clear to me that your are no Arabic speaker. You might fancy it, but you are not.

So do you want to tell you Muslim bros (sic) to stop reading translations of the Qur'an because and to paraphrase what you wrote: "what is given to us (translations of the Qur'an) that filled our markets as the word of God is not in Arabic a language that we pakistanis do not understand." What do you think ya ayuha al-faylasoof al-kabeer?

When I quote a passage form the Qur'an I read the orginal Arabic and then apply the tools of linear translation, et voila. If I can do it from Arabic to english our dear Sohail (SYA) can do the same with the original language of Bible. What do you think my dear Moustapha?

But wait: You and Sohail do not know any Arabic and Hebrew, and Aramaic and Greek and Coptic. So much for Muslim logic.

You must pardon me my dear Moustapha but your comments so far betray your total ignorance of what we call in the west, the land of the pround infidels, as _Literary Criticism_ And this means that when _scholars_, examine a text be it Homer's Iliad, the Bible, the Gita, the Tripitaka or the book of your Allah, and then give an opinion, they must examine the text in question in the primary language of the text as translators can make mistakes or they can provide their own tendentious point of view and they can also make mistakes in syntax and grammar and this would change what the text is saying.

I will give you a very simple example here as I know by now that you know no Arabic In Q9:30 your Allah or is it Muahmmad or is it Gabriel or is it 'Asrafeel says: "wa qalati...."

We are just going to work on these two words and because you know no Arabic it means:

- wa means 'and' (and there is no debate here)

- qalati means either as per Pickthall: say, or as per Rashad Khalifa: said. So who is correct?

I will not bother you with the fact that the syntax of "wa qalati al-yahood" is very poor and it can be edited as: "wa qala al-yahood" So which one is correct : say or said? for non-scholars it might not matter , but you pretend to be a Muslim scholar, so it matters. Well, in literary criticism (oh the nasty kaffir West) we have to examine the source behind the source or the author of the translation.

Rashad Khalifa's mother tongue was Arabic, but not Pickthall. So far logic would dictate that we must believe Khalifa. However, we know about the grammatical concept of aspect, which would mean that the word qalat must be aspect and in-spite of the fact that qalat is past tense, it must be regarded as presnt tense, as we have another example in the Qur'an when your Allah uses the word : qala (past tense) (Q21:4) instead of the common: Qul (present tense). And this is only a very simple example. You? You sit where ever you are and read a translation of a text in a language that you cannot understand and still pontificate about what the Qur'an is saying and in the at the end it would not make any difference to you, because your command of Arabic is big zero. If you do not get this exmaple you are really beyond help.

Now, you can see why you cannot critique the Bible unless you have great command of the _primary languages_ of the bible and they are: Syro-Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. And one can very much debate that a command of Coptic is needed because of the gnostic Bibles: eg: the Gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Judas available in extant Coptic texts.

I can critique the Qur'an because my command of Arabic is very good. ...And this is only part one. more to follow

---

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".