Comments on: Languages http://blog.momekh.com/2009/07/31/languages/ Real world advice, ideas and tips on being a better entrepreneur Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:57:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Umer http://blog.momekh.com/2009/07/31/languages/comment-page-1/#comment-551 Umer Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:11:11 +0000 http://blog.momekh.com/2009/07/31/languages/#comment-551 I haven't read the commentary of Qur'aan by Muhammad Asad (although I read his book "The Road to Mecca" a couple of years back and really liked it) but talking about the several commentaries that I've read, by prominent classical and contemporary scholars, I readily agree that contextual translation/commentary is/should be the preferred norm of this scholarship. In fact, I don't see how literal translation/commentary can even handle the attributes of something as dense and multi-dimensional as Qur'aan. (or any other great work, for that matter) I haven’t read the commentary of Qur’aan by Muhammad Asad (although I read his book “The Road to Mecca” a couple of years back and really liked it) but talking about the several commentaries that I’ve read, by prominent classical and contemporary scholars, I readily agree that contextual translation/commentary is/should be the preferred norm of this scholarship. In fact, I don’t see how literal translation/commentary can even handle the attributes of something as dense and multi-dimensional as Qur’aan. (or any other great work, for that matter)

]]> By: Momekh http://blog.momekh.com/2009/07/31/languages/comment-page-1/#comment-550 Momekh Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:40:45 +0000 http://blog.momekh.com/2009/07/31/languages/#comment-550 Upon re-reading your comment, I must add that I personally believe that contextual translation is superior to literal translation for one very simple reason: contextual is the ONLY way to do a translation! Translating any text literally is something that never happens - hence my reference to the inherent problems faced with translations in general. I hope I have made my point clearer. :) God bless Upon re-reading your comment, I must add that I personally believe that contextual translation is superior to literal translation for one very simple reason: contextual is the ONLY way to do a translation! Translating any text literally is something that never happens – hence my reference to the inherent problems faced with translations in general.

I hope I have made my point clearer. :)

God bless

]]> By: Momekh http://blog.momekh.com/2009/07/31/languages/comment-page-1/#comment-549 Momekh Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:05:25 +0000 http://blog.momekh.com/2009/07/31/languages/#comment-549 Thank you sister for the comment. But I do not see what you are saying, which is right in its own right, as related to what I am saying... M Asad's is the first work in 'English' that takes the context in account. And the denial of miracles as such is not in question (I seriously doubt that M Asad does that, but I would love to know how you reach that conclusion??). Secondly, Sir Syed's work (which I have personally not read) had nothing to do with taking translations into context ... I believe his attempt was to rationalize EVERYTHING within the realm of the CURRENT sciences - hence his alleged 'translation' of jinns as some form of physical forces etc. Again, such 'denial' (or interpretation or translation whatever you want to call it) such denial is not at all found in M Asad's work. None at all. If you know of any, do let me know please... would love to learn more and adjust my opinion accordingly. Thank you again, sister, come often. God bless. Thank you sister for the comment.
But I do not see what you are saying, which is right in its own right, as related to what I am saying…
M Asad’s is the first work in ‘English’ that takes the context in account. And the denial of miracles as such is not in question (I seriously doubt that M Asad does that, but I would love to know how you reach that conclusion??).

Secondly, Sir Syed’s work (which I have personally not read) had nothing to do with taking translations into context … I believe his attempt was to rationalize EVERYTHING within the realm of the CURRENT sciences – hence his alleged ‘translation’ of jinns as some form of physical forces etc. Again, such ‘denial’ (or interpretation or translation whatever you want to call it) such denial is not at all found in M Asad’s work. None at all. If you know of any, do let me know please… would love to learn more and adjust my opinion accordingly.

Thank you again, sister, come often. God bless.

]]> By: Saadia http://blog.momekh.com/2009/07/31/languages/comment-page-1/#comment-548 Saadia Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:54:16 +0000 http://blog.momekh.com/2009/07/31/languages/#comment-548 Salaam, Interesting post! Muhammad Asad is, for me, one of the most eloquent writers I have read to-date. His 'Road to Mecca' was so inspiring, I couldn't put the book down and immediately upon finishing, I felt inspired to camp in the desert! So yes, he does have an effect on his reader. About his translation of the Qur'an, I respect his take, but I also think that there is nothing wrong if a Muslim or any believer in God, lays faith in His ability to bring about miracles in our world. After all, the laws of nature are God's creation and they are in place by His will alone; BUT, He is not bound by them, like we are. Hence, one must not say that one approach is inherently superior to the other. Also, Asad is not really the first translator of the Qur'an, to go against its literal interpretation. A scholar of the sub-continent, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, too, took a very scientific approach towards the Qur'an. Peace. Salaam,

Interesting post! Muhammad Asad is, for me, one of the most eloquent writers I have read to-date. His ‘Road to Mecca’ was so inspiring, I couldn’t put the book down and immediately upon finishing, I felt inspired to camp in the desert! So yes, he does have an effect on his reader.

About his translation of the Qur’an, I respect his take, but I also think that there is nothing wrong if a Muslim or any believer in God, lays faith in His ability to bring about miracles in our world. After all, the laws of nature are God’s creation and they are in place by His will alone; BUT, He is not bound by them, like we are.

Hence, one must not say that one approach is inherently superior to the other. Also, Asad is not really the first translator of the Qur’an, to go against its literal interpretation. A scholar of the sub-continent, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, too, took a very scientific approach towards the Qur’an.

Peace.

]]>