Friday, March 18, 2011

Dishonesty!

Loonwatch has said that I am dishonest. For those not following the story, I came to the defense of Al Mutarjim at Translating Jihad when Loonwatch pointed out his mistake of using a passive participle "that which is translated" rather than the active participle "the translator" for his screen name. I continued in his defense when Loonwatch criticized him for translating the word Nikah as "sex" and not as "marriage", noting that I thought the word meant both.  

At the addendum of this recent posting, Loonwatch said the following about me:

SATV’s dishonesty can be gauged by his conciliatory comment on our site. He said, "I believe that much of your response to Translating-Jihad was also quite good. I won’t speak for him, but I agreed with much of your grammatical analysis. Where I disagree is your assumption that people critical of Islam deliberately mistranslate Arabic.

SATV takes, however, a completely opposite attitude on his blog. Would SATV like to be honest and state on his blog that he agrees with our grammatical analysis of Al-Mutarjim’s “translation”?

Also, note here the invocation of a “whenever” and “anybody” argument once again: “your assumption that people critical of Islam deliberately mistranslate Arabic“. Here, we are talking about one particular person and one particular site. Each stands on its own merits. Al-Mutarjim specifically and Translating-Jihad specifically are deliberately mistranslating and obfuscating Arabic. The evidence speaks for itself, and SATV’s refusal to admit this speaks to his own dishonesty."

I have carefully read Loonwatch's grammatical analysis of the Fatwa that caused this duststorm, and I can say that I agree with that analysis. I agree that the primary meaning of the word Nikah is marriage, and I agree that the Mufti who issued the Fatwa was not advocating sex with young girls. I also appreciate Loonwatch's stated position of opposing the Mufti's argument that engagement with young girls is allowable in the 21st century.

Call it a platform, an agenda, a modus operandi - everybody has one. Al Mutarjim stated his openly and clearly when he said, "I resolved to work to expose this darkness, in order to defend this country and its inhabitants, and also to open the eyes of those already enslaved by Islam."

With this stated agenda, it is only natural that Translating-Jihad would feature articles that represent, from his perspective, "this darkness". My question to Loonwatch is, Why are you leaving this responsibility to Al Mutarjim? Why is is Al Mutarjim, and not Loonwatch, who points out the glaring inconsistency between the Arabic and English al-Qassam Brigades website coverage of the slaughter of the family at Itamar? Why does Loonwatch not find these articles, translate them correctly rather than simply criticize the translations of Al Mutarjim, and then explain how they do not represent the religion Loonwatch purports to be the true Islam?

I've never stated my agenda, but it's quite obvious to anyone who has been reading SATV for awhile that I believe most Muslims follow the Prophet they wish had existed rather than the Muhammad who really did, that Islam has a tight grip on them, and I hold great admiration for those who have the courage to break away.

So, Loonwatch, have I been honest enough? If so, let's share a beer together.....or would it have to be a coke?

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I can say that I agree with that analysis. I agree that the primary meaning of the word Nikah is marriage, and I agree that the Mufti who issued the Fatwa was not advocating sex with young girls."

So you agree that Al-Mutarajjam -- Errmm, I mean Al-Mutarjim, was wrong. And that rather than admitting his mistake he continued to engage in dishonest tactics. Cool, now tell him that he was wrong and that if he wants to continue attacking the beliefs of 1.5 billion people, he should at least make the effort to translate things properly.

"With this stated agenda, it is only natural that Translating-Jihad would feature articles that represent, from his perspective, "this darkness"."

So it's appropriate for him to even lie and deceive in order to portray this "darkness". Jesus would be proud (/sarc)

Why can't you just deal with what they've said. Why are you purposefully trying to move everything into a discussion about something horrible going on somewhere else. All of your "responding" articles end with some random paragraph to try and change the topic.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

It seems the above Anonymous (at 7:58 pm) is reading a bit too much into SATV's comment.

Anonymous said...

It seems that the above Anonymous 2 has forgotten that this is a comments section, where I am allowed to comment on his article.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

You write: "It seems that the above Anonymous 2 has forgotten that this is a comments section, where I am allowed to comment on his article."

You are imaginative, aren't you! Keep on proving my hypothesis: You are reading too much into SATV's words, and, now, mine.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

SATV,

You wrote:
"I have carefully read Loonwatch's grammatical analysis of the Fatwa that caused this duststorm, and I can say that I agree with that analysis."

Could you elaborate on what you mean by their grammatical analysis?

I find a problem with their (LW's) interpretation that the word nikah necessarily implies marriage without sex or a marriage before sex has occurred. One reason for that is that the "verse" (65:4) assumes there has already been not only marriage but sexual intercourse. Hence the 3-month waiting period.

"I agree that the primary meaning of the word Nikah is marriage,"

Ah, but no one's arguing that nikah doesn't mean marriage. The problem that Loonwatch can't shake off, no matter how much they try to avoid the issue, is that in Islamic law, nikah is defined as the contract permitting sexual intercourse, or a contract of marriage that is intended to include sexual intercourse.

"...and I agree that the Mufti who issued the Fatwa was not advocating sex with young girls."

No one ever claimed that the mufti was advocating it. The debate concerns precise terms like permissible, forbidden, advised/admonished/counseled, etc. Again, something that is not advisable (according modern medical concerns, modern cultural values, etc.) can still be permissible according to the Qur'an and Sunnah.

"I also appreciate Loonwatch's stated position of opposing the Mufti's argument that engagement with young girls is allowable in the 21st century."

They would have to be completely nuts not to say this, even while they defend the ideological sources (Qur'an and Muhammad) of the problem. We will continue to see weasel-worded fatawa, such as the one in question, until these scholars and muftis, and the societies in which they live, are comfortable with criticizing and contradicting the Qur'an and Muhammad.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

SATV,

You wrote:
"I have carefully read Loonwatch's grammatical analysis of the Fatwa that caused this duststorm, and I can say that I agree with that analysis."

Could you elaborate on what you mean by their grammatical analysis, and what exactly it is that you agree with?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, why can't you just admit that "The Translated" deceived his readers by leaving out 4/5th of the fatwa, including the main conclusion, and the sentence that he falsely presented as being the conclusion was entirely mistranslated.

SATV agrees, so why don't you?

Here's the article from Loonwatch that SATV agrees with:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/02/translating-jihads-completely-fraudulent-translations/

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

You should read my posts before making assumptions. I've already addressed the issue of the excluded material. More importantly, so did Al Mutarjim. In contrast, Loonwatch withheld information from their readers and misled them. Even now Loonwatch continues to lie to their readers about such a simple thing as the meaning of a word that anyone can look up by checking several dictionaries. Dawood and Danios are not only liars, but they are idiots.

Nadir said...

I think the problem is that this when you are translating high-level, very nuanced Arabic such as Fatwas that contain specialized legal terminology there is a very high probability that you will accidentally misconstrue the meaning of particular words if you aren't an expert in that particular specialty.  For example, the word "Qanoon" (قانون) means "law" in some contexts, "rule" in some contexts, "statute" etc...  All related, but they have differed nuances depending on the context.  This doesn't mean one isn't proficient in the language if they make a mistake, or being dishonest - it just means that they aren't familiar with certain technical nuances.  This, of course, isn't limited to Arabic - legal documents in English are very difficult even for educated native English speakers to understand.  It takes lawyers to interpret laws, and they often disagree with each other because certain key words can be interpreted in such a way that it changes the meaning or implications of the law.  

I disagree with loonwatch that al-mutarjim was being dishonest, and I don't like their tactics at all.  But, I agree that the best translation for word Nikah in the context of the fatwa is "marriage", and that the fatwa wasn't condoning sex with pre-pubescent  girls.  The Mufti insinuated that, per the Quran, 9 years old could be an acceptable age if it's legal I'm the country one resides in (suggesting that 'Aisha was not pre-pubescent according to the law of the land at the time and place it this occurred).

The key takeaway - translations of highly specialized material should always be translated in full, as objectively as possible, and with input from a credentialed specialist in that particular field, in this case Islamic Law.  Analysis of the meaning of the material should be qualified as the speaker's interpretation of the final, agreed upon translation (ie:  I understand this to say..., while another possible interpretation could be...).  That is extremely time consuming, I know, but leaves a lot less room for personal attacks and accusations, which is loonwatch's forte.

Anonymous said...

Even now Loonwatch continues to lie to their readers about such a simple thing as the meaning of a word that anyone can look up by checking several dictionaries. Dawood and Danios are not only liars, but they are idiots.

You clearly didn't read big bad Dawood's and Danios' latest response. Sorry, but the case against "The Translated" is airtight. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Nadir said...

I think the problem is that this when you are translating high-level, very nuanced Arabic such as Fatwas that contain specialized legal terminology there is a very high probability that you will accidentally misconstrue the meaning of particular words if you aren't an expert in that particular specialty.  For example, the word "Qanoon" (قانون) means "law" in some contexts, "rule" in some contexts, "statute" etc...  All related, but they have differed nuances depending on the context.  This doesn't mean one isn't proficient in the language if they make a mistake, or being dishonest - it just means that they aren't familiar with certain technical nuances.  This, of course, isn't limited to Arabic - legal documents in English are very difficult even for educated native English speakers to understand.  It takes lawyers to interpret laws, and they often disagree with each other because certain key words can be interpreted in such a way that it changes the meaning or implications of the law.  

I disagree with loonwatch that al-mutarjim was being dishonest, and I don't like their tactics at all.  But, I agree that the best translation for word Nikah in the context of the fatwa is "marriage", and that the fatwa wasn't condoning sex with pre-pubescent  girls.  The Mufti insinuated that, per the Quran, 9 years old could be an acceptable age if it's legal I'm the country one resides in (suggesting that 'Aisha was not pre-pubescent according to the law of the land at the time and place it this occurred).

The key takeaway - translations of highly specialized material should always be translated in full, as objectively as possible, and with input from a credentialed specialist in that particular field, in this case Islamic Law.  Analysis of the meaning of the material should be qualified as the speaker's interpretation of the final, agreed upon translation (ie:  I understand this to say..., while another possible interpretation could be...).  That is extremely time consuming, I know, but leaves a lot less room for personal attacks and accusations, which is loonwatch's forte.

Sara said...

SATV-

I have admired your blog from the first posting for its excellent translation and analysis. I would strongly encourage you to not get too caught up in the weeds of defending the details agaisnt every criticism. It is impossible to do, distracts you from producing excellent narratives and may turn off new readers.

An ardent fan,
SRK

Quotable Quotes: said...

Sara,
I agree with you 100 percent. Adios, Loonwatch, and as I wrote before, "May you continue to be happy, happy Muslims!"

Anonymous said...

"In contrast, Loonwatch withheld information from their readers and misled them. Even now Loonwatch continues to lie to their readers about such a simple thing as the meaning of a word that anyone can look up by checking several dictionaries."

Isn't that exactly what they did? -- using real Arabic dictionaries to prove that in the context of the fatwa, Nikah meant marriage. It was both SATV and Al-Mutarjim that lied by claiming that Loonwatch denied the meaning of Nikah in very few instances as sexual intercourse. Loonwatch only said that in the context of the fatwa Nikah meant marriage and this was backed up by dictionaries. Al-Mutarjim even asked to put it into Google Translate. And guess what happened? It translated it as marriage.

Obviously you haven't read the whole article at Loonwatch so it's best you don't make baseless allegations until you do.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/when-anti-muslim-websites-use-bogus-translations-and-then-try-to-cover-it-up/

Anonymous said...

"Adios, Loonwatch, and as I wrote before, "May you continue to be happy, happy Muslims!""

So rather than admitting your mistake you are going to back away. Déjà Vu:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/12/robert-spencer-is-a-chicken/

Anonymous said...

Of course, Quotable Quotes, you will continue to insist that since Loonwatch are Muslims, they have a bias against any critic. If you are a fan of Robert Spencer then you may even throw in the taqiyya allegation and stealth jihad. But of course, that can't be true.

"We have writers from a diverse background including Muslims, Christians, Jews and even agnostics and it is this team that continues the tremendous work of “deconstructing the lies” and inanities that is the anti-Muslim blogosphere and machine." -- Loonwatch

In fact, Loonwatch won the Best Non-Muslim Blogger award from Brass Crescent. So now it's no use trying to change the subject with random questions about the Quran or the Prophet Muhammad (unless it's relevant to the discussion) and you have to stick to the topic -- Al-Mutarjim's false translation. Normally a bad translation doesn't matter. But in this case it is being used to attack the religion of 1.5 billion people, so it is necessary to respond to such garbage.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

To Nadir,

I think much of what you say in your post is reasonable, though I do maintain that Al Mutarjim's judgment call here on the nikah translation was reasonable and justified. Once you get the implications of 65:4, you'll see how Al Mutarjim's translation was justified.

Let me summarize with this:

We cannot read the mind of the mufti who wrote the fatwa. (Someone, of course, during this whole fracas, could have just contacted him and asked him what he meant!) What I suggest is this: The mufti was making a distinction between what the Quran implies, what Muhammad's example suggests, what the jurists have said and ruled historically; and in light of that, and medical and modern cultural considerations, what he himself recommendations in the final paragraph.

With all that in mind, I think what he was saying was that the "verse" 65:4 implies that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse within marriage with a prepubescent girl according to the Quran,

BUT

the Quran (often) doesn't discuss the implications of things in detail,

SO

we (being he and other Muslim scholars) turn to the Hadith which says that Muhammad waited for about three years to have sexual intercourse with child bride Aisha until she was 9 (it's not fully clear whether the mufti thinks she had reached puberty at that early age)

AND

Islamic jurists who suggest that the husband must wait until the wife can physically bear intercourse, i.e., at least until she is at puberty,

AND

in light of medical and other considerations, advise against intercourse until the wife is at least at puberty.

Such decisions are often a compromise between the ultimate authority of the Qur'anic text--which is often unreasonable and unworkable--and the Hadith, and past legal precedents, and real concerns for peoples' health and well-being, and concerns about how the opinion expressed will be received by others.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

To Nadir,

I think much of what you say in your post is reasonable, though I do maintain that Al Mutarjim's judgment call here on the nikah translation was reasonable and justified. Once you get the implications of 65:4, you'll see how Al Mutarjim's translation was justified.

Let me summarize with this:

We cannot read the mind of the mufti who wrote the fatwa. (Someone, of course, during this whole fracas, could have just contacted him and asked him what he meant!) What I suggest is this: The mufti was making a distinction between what the Quran implies, what Muhammad's example suggests, what the jurists have said and ruled historically; and in light of that, and medical and modern cultural considerations, what he himself recommendations in the final paragraph.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

(completing reply to Nadir...)

With all that in mind, I think what the mufti was saying was that the "verse" 65:4 implies that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse within marriage with a prepubescent girl according to the Quran,

BUT

the Quran (often) doesn't discuss the implications of things in detail,

SO

we (being he and other Muslim scholars) turn to the Hadith which says that Muhammad waited for about three years to have sexual intercourse with child bride Aisha until she was 9 (it's not fully clear whether the mufti thinks she had reached puberty at that early age)

AND

Islamic jurists who suggest that the husband must wait until the wife can physically bear intercourse, i.e., at least until she is at puberty,

AND

in light of medical and other considerations, advise against intercourse until the wife is at least at puberty.

Such decisions are often a compromise between the ultimate authority of the Qur'anic text--which is often unreasonable and unworkable--and the Hadith, and past legal precedents, and real concerns for peoples' health and well-being, and concerns about how the opinion expressed will be received by others.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

To Anonymous at March 19, 2011 2:53 PM:

You wrote:
"Obviously you haven't read the whole article at Loonwatch so it's best you don't make baseless allegations until you do."

No, I had already read it very closely. There were no new significant points raised which I hadn't addressed already in threads here at SATV.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

Also to the Anonymous at March 19, 2011 2:53 PM:

My previous comments on this, including those in reply to Dawood, are posted at these SATV threads:

“Missing the Forest for the Trees”

“Loonwatch and Defending Muhammad”

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

SATV wrote:

"I have carefully read Loonwatch's grammatical analysis of the Fatwa that caused this duststorm, and I can say that I agree with that analysis."

I didn't see a "grammatical" analysis. Dawood and Danios were trying to argue that because the mufti himself recommended against sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls, therefore he could not possibly have meant that verse 65:4 implied that sexual intercourse with those girls was permissible. The key is that D and D are either ignorant of, or are ignoring, the implications of 65:4. The mufti one can assume is well aware of the implications of 65:4 and chose to refer to that verse for a reason. The three month 'iddah period assumes sexual intercourse has already taken place.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

SATV: "...and I can say that I agree with that analysis."

Actually, your position differs from theirs. Your position is that the word nikah in the case in question could mean either sexual intercourse, or marriage, or both. Loonwatch's position is that it cannot possibly mean sexual intercourse in this case. So you don't agree, at least not on that crucial issue.

SATV: "I agree that the primary meaning of the word Nikah is marriage,"

I guess that's debatable in the context of Islamic law--there are plenty of scholars and jurists who define it as the contract permitting sexual intercourse--but I think Loonwatch is throwing up a red herring here. The issue is not whether one word is more frequent or dominant in general usage. The issue is what the mufti meant in reference to the "verse" 65:4.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

SATV: "and I agree that the Mufti who issued the Fatwa was not advocating sex with young girls."

Al Mutarjim never claimed the mufti was advocating it. (Even Loonwatch didn't accuse him of saying that). He was saying the mufti was saying it was "permissible." Indeed, an entirely reasonable reading of the fatwa is that the mufti has no choice but to say it's permissible according to the Quran, and so can only advise against it rather than forbid it outright (declare it haram) and recommend punishments for those men who do it.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

SATV: "Call it a platform, an agenda, a modus operandi - everybody has one. Al Mutarjim stated his openly and clearly when he said, "I resolved to work to expose this darkness, in order to defend this country and its inhabitants, and also to open the eyes of those already enslaved by Islam.""

Each of us has some kind of an agenda, and biases can come into play in interpretations, especially when we are dealing with an ambiguous word. Let's not overlook Loonwatch's agenda. They assume Islam critics like us are vile, evil people, and on top of that they tried to characterize Al Mutarjim as a nut. With all that in mind, Loonwatch's (partial) alternative translation was carried out with the clear intent of trying to find anything with which they could accuse Al Mutarjim. Finding a word like "nikah," which can mean either sexual intercourse or marriage in this case, gave them the perfect opportunity to play to the partisan crowd and mislead their predominantly non-Arabic speaking audience.

All of that said, "sexual intercourse" or "marital intercourse" or "sexual intercourse in marriage" would not be a factually incorrect translation of the word nikah in this case.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

Also in reply to Nadir's post:

I have the sense that both you and SATV have been swayed by Dawood's and Danios' emotional appeals, fallacies, confirmation bias, suppression of evidence, blatant lying, and hysterics and histrionics. They are playing a confidence game here.

While your (Nadir's) post seems reasonable in some respects, in others I believe it is incorrect and unreasonable.

On the use of technical legal terminology, the word "nikah" in Islamic jurisprudence means either the contract of marriage or the contract permitting sexual intercourse. However, again, in reference to the verse 65:4, the mufti was referring to a scenario in which both marriage and sexual intercourse had already taken place.

That said, I see you don't take Dawood or Danios to task over their misleading use of the word "forbid/forbade". I would say that if someone uses that word, they should put beside it, in parentheses ( ), the transliterated Arabic word from which it was translated (which in this case is, in fact, not "haram").

On the issue of providing a full translation of translated documents, I think that's impractical given the length of many of the documents in question. Some fatawa are quite lengthy. I think what Al Mutarjim is doing is perfectly legitimate in highlighting and showing the relevant parts. MEMRI does the same, and other journalists do the same; it's standard practice, due to practical considerations. As long as there is not excluded material that significantly mitigates or contradicts the point of the quoted material, then I see no problem with it. It's a question of the presenter using his/her judgment in presenting what a, average reasonable person in the target audience ought to expect in terms of a reliable and valid representation of the translated material. Anyways, Al Mutarjim did address the issue of the excluded material in this case, whereas Dawood and Danios failed to address (or chose not to address) the material that they excluded.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

Also in reply to Nadir's post:

I have the sense that both you and SATV have been swayed by Dawood's and Danios' emotional appeals, fallacies, confirmation bias, suppression of evidence, blatant lying, and hysterics and histrionics. They are playing a confidence game here.

While your (Nadir's) post seems reasonable in some respects, in others I believe it is incorrect and unreasonable.

On the use of technical legal terminology, the word "nikah" in Islamic jurisprudence means either the contract of marriage or the contract permitting sexual intercourse. However, again, in reference to the verse 65:4, the mufti was referring to a scenario in which both marriage and sexual intercourse had already taken place.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

continuing...

That said, I see you don't take Dawood or Danios to task over their misleading use of the word "forbid/forbade". I would say that if someone uses that word, they should put beside it, in parentheses ( ), the transliterated Arabic word from which it was translated (which in this case is, in fact, not "haram").

On the issue of providing a full translation of translated documents, I think that's impractical given the length of many of the documents in question. I think what Al Mutarjim is doing is perfectly legitimate in highlighting and showing the relevant parts. As long as there is not excluded material that significantly mitigates or contradicts the point of the quoted material, then I see no problem with it. Anyways, Al Mutarjim did address the issue of the excluded material in this case, whereas Dawood and Danios failed to address (or chose not to address) the material that they excluded.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

That said, I see you don't take Dawood or Danios to task over their misleading use of the word "forbid/forbade". I would say that if someone uses that word, they should put beside it, in parentheses ( ), the transliterated Arabic word from which it was translated (which in this case is, in fact, not "haram").

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

On the issue of providing a full translation of translated documents, I think that's impractical given the length of many of the documents in question. I think what Al Mutarjim is doing is perfectly legitimate in highlighting and showing the relevant parts. As long as there is not excluded material that significantly mitigates or contradicts the point of the quoted material, then I see no problem with it. Anyways, Al Mutarjim did address the issue of the excluded material in this case, whereas Dawood and Danios failed to address (or chose not to address) the material that they excluded.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

Re: providing a translation of entire documents, I think that's impractical given the length of many of the documents in question. I think what Al Mutarjim is doing is perfectly legitimate in showing the relevant parts. As long as there is not excluded material that significantly mitigates or contradicts the point of the quoted material, then I see no problem with it. Anyways, Al Mutarjim did address the issue of the excluded material in this case, whereas Dawood and Danios didn’t address the material that they excluded.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

Re: providing a translation of entire documents, I think that's impractical given the length of many of the documents in question. I think what Al Mutarjim is doing is perfectly legitimate in showing the relevant parts. As long as there is not excluded material that significantly mitigates or contradicts the point of the quoted material, then I see no problem with it. Anyways, Al Mutarjim did address the issue of the excluded material in this case, whereas Dawood and Danios didn’t address the material that they excluded.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

(3rd attempt to post...)

Re: providing a translation of entire documents, I think that's impractical given the length of many of the documents in question. I think what Al Mutarjim is doing is perfectly legitimate in showing the relevant parts.

(to continue)

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

(continuing bite-sized post to get past whatever barriers have ben set on Blogger...)

...As long as there is not excluded material that significantly mitigates or contradicts the point of the quoted material, then I see no problem with it. Anyways, Al Mutarjim did address the issue of the excluded material in this case, whereas Dawood and Danios didn’t address the material that they excluded.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

(continuing with bite-sized post and hoping it will get through...)

As long as there is not excluded material that significantly mitigates or contradicts the point of the quoted material, then I see no problem with it. Anyways, Al Mutarjim did address the issue of the excluded material in this case, whereas Dawood and Danios didn’t address the material that they excluded.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

continued...

As long as there is not excluded material that significantly mitigates or contradicts the point of the quoted material, then I see no problem with it. Anyways, Al Mutarjim did address the issue of the excluded material in this case, whereas Dawood and Danios didn’t address the material that they excluded.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

Wow, I can't even get through to post two sentences to finish my last point!

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

continuing...

As long as there is not excluded material that significantly mitigates or contradicts the point of the quoted material, then I see no problem with it.

Anonymous said...

(Anonymous2)

continuing...completing.

Anyways, Al Mutarjim did address the issue of the excluded material in this case, whereas Dawood and Danios didn’t address the material that they excluded.

Anonymous said...

hm