sam, what is the problem here? I don't see any reason why one language cannot be successfully translated into another. Why do you? "Things to consider when translating Arabic to English Which way should Arabic be written? The first thing to remember is that Arabic is written and reads from right to left, letters are always joined to each other and can't be split across lines. On standard translated Arabic documents, like word, this is no problem. But if your document has a detailed design there are a lot of considerations: * Images will need to be repositioned. * The page numbering will also need amending as translated Arabic documents don’t open the conventional European way. For example: o Standard European page order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 o Arabic page order: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 Does the text get longer or shorter? When translating one language to another, text will typically expand or contract. English to Arabic translation typically expands by about 25%. And Arabic to English translation, as you would expect, contracts by about 25%. This obviously depends on the subject matter. Getting something as seemingly insignificant right, can make a huge difference to the success of your Arabic Translation; as you can see if you have a 12 page document written in English, not only will it read the opposite way but you may need to add more pages. Quality assured Arabic translators Language is a living thing it develops and changes constantly. To ensure our translators keep abreast of the language, all our Arabic translators live in-county and translate into their mother tongue. Our database of translators ensures that we can guarantee you a fast turnaround, even on large documents with short deadlines. * Only 20% of the translators who apply to work for us pass our quality checks. That's how committed we are to ensuring that our standards are kept extremely high." http://www.appliedlanguage.com/languages/arabic_translation.shtml
From your link: And the Quranic tafsir (interpretation) itself is not simple in Arabic; so with many words having a limited meaning in English or no counterpart, translations are frequently inadequate.
I wonder if any of these pics ever made the media? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or any of these? http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm
another question comes to mind...what do you define media? and since colgate.edu is media as well...or is it not?
not this in particular...but something like this, yes. anyways internet is the media...and thats what I wanted to say.
Surely you understand mockery, insults and ridicule. They are the hallmark of contemporary democracy in the West.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Muslims in America & the world. The good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRNciryImqg&mode=related&search= The Bad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YUUB_VSROc The Innocent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc0G_DhNNqY The injutice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_3VvZkwujI Teaching the Hate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ6LLvbz95E&mode=related&search= The devotion in song! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dltai2RC6IM All religions have their bad apples, all religions have commited crimes against humanity, let us not judge all muslims the same, as the radicals, for all religions have them, let us just judge the individual not their beliefs. Godless
why is it that apples get to be blamed for everything? first for religions...than for Adam's actions... Why not grapes? or peaches?
The apple wasn't bad, the act of eating it caused the problem. The saying, I think, derives from "one bad apple will spoil the whole bushel."
The Sufi, of course, provided they meet the appropriate social requirements: religious freedom (including the acceptance of apostacy), equality of the sexes, tolerance of homosexuals (to the point they aren't condemned to death anyway). I imagine this is likely since they don't subscribe to a specific madhab? What islamic nations are presently guided by Sufi philosophy? Regrettably, their nations do, and it would appear from the attitudes of islamic immigrants to the West that many of the inhabitants of those nations do in fact accept the tenets of islamic supremacism that make up "extremism". The inequities of Western society are not legally prescribed as such; they are failures of the system, rather than examples of its correct application. Can you give me an example of a nation other than Israel which, on being attacked by foreign powers bent on genocide, returned land won in a defensive war? Can you give me an example of another nation in the ME which is not islamic? Is one such nation too many? Why do some Moroccans agitate for "their" lands in Spain to be returned? What does their hanging a key over their hearths symbolize? Well, American interest in the ME is a recent phenomenon too. Which came first, gasoline and evil commercialism or Wahhabism? Qutb (if you want to blame him alone) hated the US and Western society on merit alone. Why are you seemingly defending the Saudis? "Them" and "us"...as the distinction is so clearly made in the islamic world? You seem to imply that I want to arrange such a mentality here: nothing could be further from the truth, unless perhaps you were to accuse me of the intent of genocide. Rather, I wish to avoid islam's ascendance in the Western world, when clearly every example of islamic majority in the eastern one necessarily incorporates sharia and actual segregation in the form of dhimmitude. That is the real, and best example of, "them" and "us" thinking. And, of course, restrictions on the expression of non-islamic religions in the ummah as a whole do not amount to the same thing as banning all religious adornment in France, which in any event falls much, much later than the damnation of non-muslim religions in the Middle East. Who is acting, and who reacting? And in which European nation is it illegal to build mosques higher than nearby churches, or to build them at all? Where are apostates from Judaism, Christianity, secularism or any religion at all put to death for their conversions of conscience? Does it do all those things indeed? And here I was merely arguing against the phenomenon of creeping islamicization outside dar-al-islam. But, pray thee tell, Samwise: why should Israel in the Middle East not then be a reality? "Judged for not being in step with the modern world"? If by that you mean how immigrating Jews were not going to accept dhimmitude, then my sympathy fails me, as I can see yours does not. Can you really extend such support in principle even under the very circumstances you state - this "failure of lockstep with modernity" - which is dhimmitude? Would it be wrong of me to say that you seem to be opining that dhimmitude was all right, on basis of your shared religion with the majority of Palestinians? This seems to me what you're implying. I also point out that Israel is, indeed, small: why such pains over such a small thorn? 'Palestine' was no nation at the time of Israel's creation. I do indeed sympathize with their plight, and I would vastly prefer a resolution - which, given the history of dealings between Palestinians and Jews from the beginning of last century onward, and the concept of 'dhimmitude', would thus have to be a two-state one. "Expected to give up"? My understanding was that lands were sold and lands were bought: perhaps complaints should be directed to the Turks, since they did the dealings after all. Good. If you understand my actual concern - and not the purported perspective you give me - then we are getting somewhere. Best, Geoff
And then how is it, Sam, that so many islamic nations get those very same translations so wrong in the construction of sharia? Surely you don't mean to imply they can't understand Arabic? Yet they seem to obtain those harder versions of islam so easily. Sam, I repeat: I think islam can be reformed, and I applaud reformers such as yourself for their efforts. But it is the height of folly to pretend that 1400 years of dhimmitude and sharia is based on mere misunderstanding and dozy grammaticists.
How else does one "strive with their life"? The meaning is very obvious: and the same impression is also taken by many muslims themselves. Are they, too, misunderstanding the English translation? Can no one ever get islam right? Best, Geoff
Indeed. And they are preferable to: extortion, murder and arson. Then again, some skins are thin enough that debate seems to be the same as mockery. This is regrettable, but still a fact.
