14 internautes sur 14 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
My conclusions about this book are based on months of reading it and comparing it to the three standard translations of Shakir, Yusufali and Picthal and Sale ("SYPS"). I read the entire thing, word by word and compared it when I simply could not understand a verse.
Good things about it:
1) the absolute best thing is simply that a woman did it! This is an absolutely amazing feat when considering the status of women in most Islamic countries, and even the numerous comments made in the Koran itself about how women are to be subject to and spend all their time serving their husbands and children. How could a woman that did this ever get such a feat done then? Her family must have been amazingly understanding. Good for them!
2) She, in general, mitigates or softens some of the harsh language found in the classic translations of SYPS For example, referring to the prophet as a "Admonisher" has been changed to "mere preacher" or "Warner". Calling the "Koran" a "Warning" or "Admonishment" is generally changed to "book leading to eminence", "most excellent instruction", etc. "Fear god" has been changed to "take god as a shield". Good idea.
3) Because no translation of an ancient document, and especially one like the Koran, is ever going to convey an accurate meaning in every verse to everyone at every time, I highly recommending buying it, if only to see her perspective, which is given in parentheses. Anyone who reads the Koran, in order to really understand it, should read several versions, comparing them on the fly. The easiest way to do this is to search for "multilingual koran" and then look al-islam's website. She pooh-pooh's commentaries, but they really help.
4) One great part is that while SYPS pretty much add in the same words and terms in italics to aide in the reading, she has quite a bit of new and different perspective on what should be added, and I liked her independent thinking very much. It would be nice to know, tho, if this was based upon her own experiences in her particular Muslim sect, or if it was taken from a particular commentary. She should have footnoted this. People wonder why she departs from SYPS.
Detractions from it:
1) Most other "translations" (used in the normal sense, not in the Islamic, picky about translation vs. interpretation thing), simply use italics when the author needs to insert a few more words to clarify the meaning of this ancient document which is often a difficult read. Instead, she uses parentheses, and all over the place, keeping any flow most difficult. Italics would provide for a better, smoother read.
2) The grammar is quite poor in many places. In fact, in doing my reading and comparison, I had to often refer to other sources to see what she was attempting to say. I feel sorry for her, English obviously isn't her first language. The use of "infect" for "in fact" in some passages is quite comical, as if the prophet has "infected" Allah! She should be aware that many religious readers go nuts even over the smallest errors, and her lack of understanding of English is an error that so serious she should have, in all honesty, gone back and redone the book, withdrawn the prior copies and inserted corrected ones. If she doesn't understand English that well, she should have hired a good editor, preferably one with a degree in English. There's about one glaring English error for every 3 or 4 pages, so it's kind of fun to play the game "find the error" while you're reading a book that constantly repeats many precepts and stories, over and over. But I guess long ago, when people were overwhelmingly illiterate, perhaps this was necessary?
3) She rips apart many of the old translations of SYPS and even George Sale, yet her English is so poor compared with theirs, which appears to be professional created and edited. It's a problem because she makes blanket statements about how these old guys were disparaging to Islam and the prophet, yet she cites no examples of what it is about their translations that was either improper or irks her. If she makes a statement to disparage, she should support it, otherwise drop it. I think her ire is directed to the fact that some of the older authors refer to the stories as "tales" "legends" or "stories", when she just wants them to portray them out as proven facts.
4) Another glaring irksome statement she makes is that Jesus (Yeshua) was angling for the pro war thing when he said "I did not come to bring peace, but instead I have brought a sword." Is she really kidding? Has she ever talked to a Christian about the meaning of that statement and how it is pure allegory. Yeshua never went to war, never handled a sword, or even said anything about real war or violence. The sword is his preaching or words, and he was on the earth to use a "sword" to cut through negativity (hate, greed, violence, jealousy, injustice, etc.) This statement really has to go, because many Christians (including myself) find it most insulting, and not the view of 90%+ of us. Respectfully, I hope it is removed by the next edition (correction), because it is soooo far afield.
Book rating: B+. Could be an A+ with a bit more editing and softening of the words towards peace and non-violence, which she is doing a good job on so far. please, CLEAN UP THE ENGLISH! Try some italics to make it an easier read.