Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba
A (rhetorical) question. Or three.
The first question academic historians--and others in the Ivory Tower--ask when assessing discussions/interpretations of primary source materials is this. - Are the viewpoints based upon a reading of the documents in their original languages or weretranslated versions used?
This is a vitally important question. Translating a document is a form of editing. Editors make editorial decisions. Editorial decisions change the nature of a work. Hence, the second question is: - What decisions did the translator make and why?
And from there comes a third question. - To what extent do those decisions shape a discussant's experience with (and understanding of) a document, text, or tome?
How an individual addresses these questions often plays a vital role in establishing his (or her) credibility on a given topic. For this reason, Americanists often experience the reproachful glares of Europeanists who have more diverse language skills. John Lewis Gaddis abandoned his plans to be a historian of Russia in favor of American foreign relations because he had difficulty mastering Russian.** More recently, a prominent naval historian took a major professional risk by offering a new interpretation of Clausewitz after reading that theorist in English alone.***
|
Sigaba,
Full answer is to get a copy of Ibn Warraq's Leaving Islam:
http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-.../dp/1591020689
Read the back of the book - the Appendix A if I remeber correctly (I have it a work).
The short answer is "Reliance of the Traveller" was written BY MUSLIMS for MUSLIMS. and it's a certified true translation as verified by the Syrians, Jordanians, Fiqh Academy at Jedda, President of the IIIT (Islamic Institute of Islamic Thought), Al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy.
This wasn't translated by some lone-wolf and it can't be accused of "orientalism."