Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Guest Dialectician

What Are You Reading Currently? [OFFICIAL THREAD]

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The translation still sucks though. I mean no offense toward the people who worked hard to translate this book, but it's obvious that English is not their native tongue.

You don't require English to be your native tongue for the purposes of translation. Expert knowledge of both the languages as well as experience in translation is the key to a good translation.

Anyway the book is interesting. I started reading a (partial/summarised) Urdu translation of it years ago but couldn't or didn't finish it. Can the English be found over the web?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't require English to be your native tongue for the purposes of translation. Expert knowledge of both the languages as well as experience in translation is the key to a good translation.

Anyway the book is interesting. I started reading a (partial/summarised) Urdu translation of it years ago but couldn't or didn't finish it. Can the English be found over the web?

It doesn't necessarily need to be your native tongue, no. But you must be as good in the language you are translating to as the language you are translating from. And if you are better in one language, than it is best that you be better in the language you are translating to. When I said native tongue, I meant they have to know it as if it's their native tongue. It has to flow. It has to be natural.

And here:

http://www.wofis.com/Publications.aspx?bookID=25

Of-course. Your point?

"Notorious ladiesman" don't desert their upper class comfortable lives to roam from one hellish place to another to fight for liberation of oppressed nation and races. "Notorious ladiesman" don't implement strict orders against the sexual perversion upon himself and his own unit in a place that was reduced into a brothel [if I can recall correctly, it was in Havana]. "Notorious ladiesman" don't show disdain [not just verbally, but through their live and deeds] for materialism and money.

Action speaks louder than words, dear sir.

If he really was racist towards the Congolese, why did he fought for them?

... So? And I hope you do realize that the man was living [or rather, fighting] under extremely harsh circumstances. AND I'm hypothetically agreeing with your assertion while giving my proposals, I'm unsure about the validity of your claims.

I'm totally unsure about the validity of your claims. Bolivian Communist Party turned their back on Che, he only had 24 men. His disguise was blown due to his comrades' carelessness. Fidel didn’t send the promised food, ammunition, medicines, equipments, anything that was necessary. Then local peasants played their part in making his quest impossible for him. The conditions were unbelievably harsh, no vegetation, no animals, no farmers, nothing. Che and his men were starving, sick, fever, under armed, hallucinating, exhausted etc, and Che himself lost half of his body-weight and also suffering from chronic asthma. And no, that's not it. He was going through a very dark period of his life [thanks to his mother's death and other personal hell he was going through]. But still, Che continued, which alone is a concrete proof of the man's dogged persistence and immeasurable determination[in the end, he was unable to fire his rifle due to a wound, yet he kept fighting]. But things doesn't end there, Tanya's [his comrade] blunder caused his enemies to ambush and wipe his entire unit. Che’s messenger and his own comrade [a peasant, who was on his side, outright sold-out and betrayed him] played their part in ruining his quest [which, if I can recall correctly, caused his capture]. Then there were factors such as Bolivian propaganda that further played it's part.

Such were the circumstances under which he was fighting. Despite of all of that, he always led from the front. He even anticipated the disastrous aftermath and wanted to leave Bolivia, but he decided to not leave his comrades behind and searched for them (causing his capture). I honestly don't think any of these actions of his makes him a "burden" on his men. In fact, it's quite the opposite.

And who's to say he died on his knees? His own executioner recalls his fearlessness towards the face of death. His legendary last words: "Shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man." are another concrete proof that not only did his enemies failed to rattle his fighting spirit, but he rocked the entire Bolivian army through his courage. And his legacy and influence continues to defeat his enemies to this very day.

Anyone who can sacrifice his life for an ideal, the highest form of human, to solve human ills, is the most complete man in my book. Anyone who can stare death straight at the face is the most complete man in my book. Anyone who can abandon his desires and comforts of life for a greater good is the most complete man in my book. And more...

Riiight. You do realize that everything you said [and more...] about Che can be applied to Prophet Muhammad as well?

I am not gonna go into this point by point, but:

Che's womanizing is well documented. Read Jon Lee Anderson's biography of Che (Anderson, btw, very much an admirer of him and I still came out of the book feeling that Che was a douche).

His racism for the Congolese became evident as he was fighting for them. I don't remember the exact quotes but basically he said they were lazy bums who didn't know how to fight. FYI: he abandoned the Congolese struggle.

When I am talking about him dying on his knees, I do not mean when he was shot. I mean when he surrendered. Clearly he didn't love death. A true warrior must love death.

All in all, I say Che was mostly a wannabe. The only reason many idolize him is because he was so photogenic. (And for those who have seen his speeches, they were probably won over by his charm). Other than that he is an empty symbol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Che's womanizing is well documented. Read Jon Lee Anderson's biography of Che (Anderson, btw, very much an admirer of him and I still came out of the book feeling that Che was a douche).

I actually read Jon Lee Anderson's book, "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life", years ago. So I'll be speaking from raw memory:

Che was a womanizer back when he was still in his youth, back when he didn't attained the higher state of consciousness. After his transformation was complete, he became a different man. He denounced all the "negative" habits and behavior, and disciplined himself to become very different man. And, his actions which I brought up above, is a concrete proof of that.

His racism for the Congolese became evident as he was fighting for them.

In Congolese war, he only criticized Congolese rebel leader, and he had every right to do so. That guy ONLY VISITED the front lines just once. He arrived in a speed boat with prostitutes, and was more-like having a picnic than getting ready for a war. He was an outright douche-bag and Che lost 6 of his men because of his douche-baggery. Few man that there were with him [the Congolese rebel leader], knew nothing about weapons, warrior's ideology, strategies etc.

. I don't remember the exact quotes but basically he said they were lazy bums who didn't know how to fight.

That's a different quote. Those words were said by him when he met crossed paths with blacks in Venezuelan slum back when he was on his Motorcycle trip in his youth. Che became a different man later on and denounced that racist behavior of his, and his actions redeemed him. His actions, as I explained before, are a concrete proof that he wasn't racist. I hope you do realize that Che's bodyguard, Harry Pombo, was an Afro, and he holds him in high regard to this very day. I hope you do realize that Che heralded Malcolm X when he was in NY. I hope you do realize Che offered assistance to fight alongside the (black) FRELIMO in Mozambique, for their independence from the Portuguese. I hope you do realize that [i'll copy some stuff verbatim here] Che pushed for racially integrating the schools in Cuba, years before they were racially integrated in the Southern United States. In August 1961, Che stood up the U.S. for their "discrimination against blacks and and outrages by the Ku Klux Klan", which matched his declarations in 1964 before the United Nations (12 years after his "indolent" remark), where Guevara denounced the United States policy towards their black population, stating:

"Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men — how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?"

Now, with my job done here, didn't Ali ibn Abu Ta'alib [if I can recall correctly] made negative remarks about his own people? Didn't Hussain ibn Ali said something offensive and vile in nature about Hur's mother? Why don't you guys bring these things up?

FYI: he abandoned the Congolese struggle.

He was being pragmatic, not a racist or coward etc.

When I am talking about him dying on his knees, I do not mean when he was shot.

I know, my good lad.

I mean when he surrendered. Clearly he didn't love death. A true warrior must love death.

Again, he was being pragmatic. And once again, his actions, that I brought to light above, are a concrete proof that he was absolutely fearless [especially of death]. He was a thinking man, just because he was fearless doesn't mean that he was a moron and should simply jump in-front of unavoidable death. No, he used pragmatic [and an intelligent] approach.

With that said, Hussain ibn Ali [during the battle of Karbala] seemingly surrendered and even sought for a way out, are you going to say he was a coward?

All in all, I say Che was mostly a wannabe. The only reason many idolize him is because he was so photogenic. (And for those who have seen his speeches, they were probably won over by his charm). Other than that he is an empty symbol.

This is just asinine, no offense. I won't play Devil's advocate here and speak on behalf of majority, but I [and many people that I know of] admire him because of the traits I mentioned above. None of which has anything to do with him being "photogenic" or anything. To be honest, it seems like the only reason Muslim seems to idolize Prophet Muhammad, Ali ibn Abu Ta'alib, Hussain ibn Ali etc is because the proverbial "greatness" about them [which cannot be verified at the first place, and are arbitrary at best] are shoved down and embedded deep within their sub-conscious since they were born.

Edited by The Exalted One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently reading ''A book by John Irving , widow for one year''

found a good old book on my fathers dusty bookshelves ''the complete work of allama iqbal's in farsi '' <--- my dad reads it for me hhahahahaha i bother him every day to recite a few pages for me :| :P

Finished reading :Biography on Indira Ghandi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of bad translations, alot of our religious books are translated very poorly. It's bad to the point where you don't want to read any further.

There's a certain joy in reading nice, seamless prose. These translated book are written in such technical jargon, it's a pain to read.

9780195479560.jpg

Finished this and a few other books during my disappearance from this place and I find it appropriate to go through them one by one for the benefit of the thread.

The book I quoted is the most comprehensive and systematic account of the Pakistani Sectarian scene. It starts with the commentary on the country's national narrative constructed as years went on after the independence from Britain. The ideology was devised by the intelligentsia on the principle of exclusion of the minorities in the name of religion. It reached its high point against the anti-Ahmedi agitation and the consequent declaration of the said community as heretical sect and therefore outside the pale of Islam by an elected assembly. It was only the matter of time when the agitators who equated the truth of Islam with the tenets of their particular sect to take on other, so called non-orthodox minority Muslim sects. Shia of Pakistan, quite logically, became their next target.

The author explains the anti-Shia focus of Deobandi seminaries and religiopolitical parties of Pakistan. Three major factors contributed to the systematic targetting of Shia. 1) The Iranian Revolution and the fear of Saudi-led Sunni Arabs to counter it, 2) the rise to power of a "religiously minded", Deobandi (Wahhabi) Zia-ul-Haq and 3) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the US-Saudi funded jihad to fight it.

Anti-Shia fataawa have always come from certain Deobandi seminaries of Pakistan in the 50s, 60s and 70s but they had had little effect on people and on the state machinery. But in 1986, an Indian Deobandi scholar called Manzur Numani, fearful of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and its outreach, published a collection of fataawa from the classical Sunni jurists to the modern times apostatising the Shia. (He previously wrote an anti-Khomeini book which was commissioned to be translated into Arabic and English, among other languages, by the Saudi funded Rabita `Alami Islami). His anti-Shia anthology of fataawa was welcomed in Pakistani Deobandi seminaries and widely circulated among Sunni masses. Sipah Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), the flagship Shia-killing politico-sectarian outfit, was created just the previous year with the tacit approval of Zia who was fearful of Iranian Revolution being spilled into Pakistan.

And then the mayhem started.

The author documents major Shia massacres of Saudi funded Deobandi outfits during the 1980s, including the Parachinar massacre and the Gilgit massacre of Isma'ili Shia. The Turi tribe of Shia in Parachinar (which borders Afghanistan and was a major supply route of so called mujahideen fighting the Soveits) were not cooperating with Saudi-Pakistani designed jihad as they naturally looked towards newly formed Shia Islamic government next door. For instance, the famous Allamah Arif Hussain Hussaini, later assassinated, was a Turi Shia with intimate ties with Khomeini.

The author is very clear about the Shia attacks on Sunnis/Wahhabis. He rightly says that whereas Deobandi militants sought to kill ordinary Shia en masse the Shia militatant outfit, which was formed to counter the killing of Shia and whose members were mostly trained in Iran, picked their targets carefully. They targeted and killed those Sunni elements which were responsible for inciting murder and took part in Shia killing.

In effect, the sectarian war in Pakistan of the 80s became an Iranian and Saudi proxy war as Deobandis were funded and trained by Saudi in collusion with Zia military apparatus and Shia militants naturally sought strength and money from Iranian revolutionary regime.

The last section of the book takes a critical look at the sectarian shade in the politics and practice of Al-Qaida. Khaled Ahmed is more explicit in linking the Shia killing in Pakistan (and outside Pakistan) in later years (post-9/11) with Al-Qaidah. He says that not many people see Al-Qaidah as a sectarian outfit but this is what it is. Bin Laden under the influence of Abdullah Azzam started off with targetting the "Crusaders and Zionists" but his so-called second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, shifted the priorities to targetting the "collaborators" of the "enemy". The so called collaborators included all Muslim governments, armies and non-orthodox Muslim sects who didn't share Al-Qaidah or Wahhabi belief in "Jihad". The man behind approving the views and conduct of Zarqawi in Iraq, who had a rabidly anti-Shia agenda, was no other thaan al-Zawahiri himself.

Even before that, holds the author, Al-Qaidah accepted and welcomed membership from militants who were part-time Shia killers in Pakistan and also those who took part in Shia massacres of Hazaras in Afghanistan under the Taliban rule. Thus the author establishes Al-Qaidah and its allied militant outfits as distinctively sectarian, and belonging overwhelmingly to the Deobani-AhleHadith ideology.

The book also includes a commentary on Deobani-Barelvi violence in which the same anti-Shia Deobani outfits (i.e. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi) were killing prominent Barelvi Sunnis because, to them, they weren't "Muslim enough".

-------

This book is written by a Sunni (Barelvi or Deobandi, it doesn't say) but the author doesn't mince his words; doesn't offer 'feel good' theories popular among the people and the media which deflect the blame from the culprits and put it on a few 'extremist miscreants' - or on the ubiquitous and equally mythical Western 'foreign hand' - who are bent on creating discord among two (or more) sects which are otherwise living in near-complete harmony.

The author is scathing in his indictment of the Deobani and Ahl-e-Hadith elements (The names for Salafi-Wahhabi nexus in Pakistan) and holds them responsible for turning Pakistan into a sectarian killing field. The book also puts the share of blame on the Pakistani rulers as well as its intelligence agencies for fostering 'strategic' ties with the openly sectarian militant outfits in the broader interests of the status quo while ignoring the plight of the common citizen, common Shia, and in some cases, common Sunnis too.

A must read for anyone wishing to make him or herself acquainted with the intricacies of Pakistani sectarian scene. I think it must be translated into Urdu so that it can reach the wider readership in Pakistan who sadly, as with other things, live in a jaahil, conspiratorial ignorance.

Publisher's Link : http://www.oup.com.p...exd.asp?id=1926

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.co...e/dp/0195479564

Good review. Seems like a worthwhile read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of bad translations, alot of our religious books are translated very poorly. It's bad to the point where you don't want to read any further.

There's a certain joy in reading nice, seamless prose. These translated book are written in such technical jargon, it's a pain to read.

I have similar observations though there are good exceptions. For instance the English version of Nahjul Balaghah which I own in hard copy. Don't know who translated it but it's a quality translation.

I have also noticed that the translations done by foreigners, mostly Western scholars of Islamic sciences, are qualitatively superior than done by Muslim scholars. The latter group also tend to stick to the technical phraseology instead of finding English equivalents.

Good review. Seems like a worthwhile read.

It indeed is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of bad translations, alot of our religious books are translated very poorly. It's bad to the point where you don't want to read any further.

+1000000

It's for the reason I mentioned: the people doing the translations don't have a good enough command over the English language. These translations are generally done by Arabs whose best language is Arabic by far.

In Iran it's completely different, brother. Farsi translations of Arabic books are immaculate. Even Abu Talib's poetry is translated into such eloquent Farsi; you wouldn't believe it.

Also there are poetic translations of the Quran.

And the meaning of the words are also conveyed well. If I took the Farsi translations of some hadiths, translated them into English, and posted them here, I think you would find that they are better than the ones translated (by those bad translators) directly from Arabic to English.

From other languages to Farsi, we have the best translators in the world. We are well known for this, especially in dubbing foreign TV shows. There was this old South Korean show that they used to show on Iranian TV (or was it North Korean? I have no idea because it was set in the past... pre-WWII. Those type of historical shows are similar in both Koreas). I forgot the name of the show.

But there were certain things in that show that could not pass the censor. These parts were cut out. But in the end, so many parts were cut out, that the translators were forced to create a completely new story. The Koreans saw our adaptation of their show, and liked it so much that they bought it from us. And now they watch our adaptation of their show.

Our problem has never been translating other languages to Farsi. We do that well; with books, poems, and TV shows. Our problem is with English. We don't translate anything good into English.

I think the Arabs may have the same problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am about to finish urdu version of seyahat gharb by HI Aqa-e Sayed Hassan Najafi Kochani (Rohoon ka safar-Maut kay baad). Its quite interesting but seems almost fantasy like at times. Not sure about the authenticity...if someone could verify it would be great. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually like to wait until I'm finished with a book before posting about it, but since this thread is dead and I haven't been finishing books lately I decided to post books which I have not read cover to cover.

I am reading two books on the DPRK:

North Korea/South Korea: U.S. Policy & the Korean Peninsula by John Feffer.

51OoH0QyuxL._SS500_.jpg

This is a good book on the flaws of US policy toward DPRK, the ways in which the US has violated DPRK. The author seems to be a disciple of Bruce Cumings, with the exception being that he doesn't appear to be much of a DPRK sympathizer or a Kim Il-sung admirer. He does, however, go a long way in deconstructing certain perceptions of DPRK as a villain and as the main proponent of the ongoing North-South Korean struggle. He cites examples of US intransigence in diplomacy with the DPRK and outlines the historical roots of the current standoff. He also gives harsh descriptions of the various South Korean regimes (who are given an inaccurate benevolent image in Western consciousness) and gives some good background information on Korean culture.

The author remains remarkably balanced, although your average American dogmatist would want to throw this book in the fire after reading it. I would recommend it for anyone who really wants to understand the DPRK.

And...

The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters by B.R. Myers

31T%2BZVFAPUL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

This book is very different from any other book written about DPRK thus far. Myers offers a completely new claim: he explains DPRK's actions neither in terms of political science "realism" (national self-interests blah blah), nor in terms of small country victim mentality (relentlessly defending against neighboring big powers). He explains DPRK's ideology neither as a throwback to Stalinism nor as a Confucian patriarchy. Instead, he says that the DPRK has a racial ideology inherited from Japan during the era of occupation (1910-1945). So far it seems like he is just saying things for shock value. He hasn't produced much evidence to back up his radical claims. I haven't read the whole thing though, so maybe he has something more in store. I might say more on this later.

Ya Ali

These books are all imperialists lies against DPRK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41sd5wz0eaL.jpg

India and Pakistan: Continued Conflict or Cooperation by Stanley Wolpert

Stanley Wolpert is back with his latest analysis of the conflicts that plague India and Pakistan. Anyone who is familiar with the author knows the weight his opinions carry in Subcontinental intellectual circles. In this book he traces the brief history of conflict between the two countries with emphasis on the conflict of Kashmir which is in its seventh decade with no solution in sight. He goes through various national and international initiatives to solve the Kashmir conflict and explains why they always failed. The latest and most viable solution to the problem, according to the author, is for Pakistan and India to agree on accepting the current Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir as International border between the two countries, for he believes no attempt to hand over territory to either country is likely to work. It is funny that he comes up with the same, and seemingly "simple" solution, as I have been arguing on the pages of SC for long. So great minds think alike eh? B)

Woplert's main concern is the possibility of nuclear conflict between the two neighbours. He argues that no two nuclear nations have been so close geographically and so at each others throat for the world to fear a genuine possibility of nuclear conflict. Indian and Pakistani capitals and big cities are only less than 10 ballistic-missile minutes away from each for nuclear strikes. Tracing the history of escalation of tension in 1999 after Kargil fiasco, then in 2001 after attack on Indian Parliament in Delhi by Pakistan trained jihadists, then the Mumbai train bombings in 2006, and yet again the attacks on Mumbai by the same Pak-based terrorists in 2008 have all raised the prospect not only of two powerful armies going to conventional war with each other but also of launching a nuclear strike that could wipe of hundreds of millions of people in no time.

Woplert holds that world is quite indifferent to the dangers posed by the continued conflict between the two nuclear armed neighbours as well as to the plight of hundreds of thousands innocent Kashmiris who bear the brunt of torture and oppression on daily basis. It is high time the world focused its attention on constant Indo-Pak conflict, and the root cause of it, ie. Kashmir issue. Otherwise, he says, the consequences of ignoring this conflict may be dire.

The author also puts more onus on Pakistan to gets its act right in dealing with infidel-hating Al-Qaidah, Talibani and local-terrorists who are bent on creating mischief in Indian-administered Kashmir. And he is right there. So long as Pakistan isn't able to lift itself from the swamp it has found itself in, and improve itself economically and security-wise, little can be achieved toward the goals of peace.

One weakness of the book is that it is too short to cover comprehensively the topic at hand. I wish it was twice the size it is. Second, he puts more emphasis in recounting the Pakistan side of history of wars and political intrigues whereas Indian political scene and its policies in Kashmir get little attention. At times, the narrative sounds more like a charge-sheet of the follies and foolishness of Pakistani politicians and generals in mishandling the conflict than highlighting its dynamics and contours in a less partial manner.

This is a small book. Good for those who want a concise overwiew of the 63 year long conflict between India and Pakistan as well as three (four, including Kargil) wars fought between the two countries.

I hope the review helped. And I also hope it helps some of our Muslim brethren on this board to take time off their busy Middle Eastern political schedules to take a look at the plight of South Asian Muslims, and the issues and conflicts plaguing that region. The said region, among non-desi Muslims, gets way too little attention in the all-too-exciting political quagmire of the Middle East.

Amazon Link: http://www.amazon.com/India-Pakistan-Continued-Conflict-Cooperation/dp/0520266773

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I have started reading " THE KING OF TORTS" by John Grisham..... today

and i'll write something abt it here...once i m done with it.

in the meanwhile.... i m sharing a review i found on the internet

In The King of Torts, John Grisham takes on the tort lawyers, attorneys who file large class action suits that brings massive payouts from corporations. A few of those dollars make it into the plaintiff's wallets, but huge amounts go to the lawyers who represent them.

Clay Carter is a public defender close to burn out and disgruntled by his lack of a career. A mysterious man in black then comes to him with inside information on a drug that causes people to commit murder, and if Carter sets up his own law firm, he can win huge payouts with this information.

This sets Carter on a furious path to wealth and the moniker "King of Torts" as the man in black continues to feed him inside information on different companies.

In typical Grisham fashion, there in no gray area and there's a clear delineation between good and evil, lots of thrills, and a predictable ending. The King of Torts has gathered mixed reviews, probably due to each reviewers preference, or lack thereof, for Grisham's literary style

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These books are all imperialists lies against DPRK.

You know what? Easy way to clear up the "misconceptions." Open your borders, allow outsiders to come in and circulate freely without "minders," and then everyone will see for themselves the inherent superiority of the North Korean paradisical way of life.

+1000000

It's for the reason I mentioned: the people doing the translations don't have a good enough command over the English language. These translations are generally done by Arabs whose best language is Arabic by far.

In Iran it's completely different, brother. Farsi translations of Arabic books are immaculate. Even Abu Talib's poetry is translated into such eloquent Farsi; you wouldn't believe it.

Also there are poetic translations of the Quran.

And the meaning of the words are also conveyed well. If I took the Farsi translations of some hadiths, translated them into English, and posted them here, I think you would find that they are better than the ones translated (by those bad translators) directly from Arabic to English.

From other languages to Farsi, we have the best translators in the world. We are well known for this, especially in dubbing foreign TV shows. There was this old South Korean show that they used to show on Iranian TV (or was it North Korean? I have no idea because it was set in the past... pre-WWII. Those type of historical shows are similar in both Koreas). I forgot the name of the show.

But there were certain things in that show that could not pass the censor. These parts were cut out. But in the end, so many parts were cut out, that the translators were forced to create a completely new story. The Koreans saw our adaptation of their show, and liked it so much that they bought it from us. And now they watch our adaptation of their show.

Our problem has never been translating other languages to Farsi. We do that well; with books, poems, and TV shows. Our problem is with English. We don't translate anything good into English.

I think the Arabs may have the same problem.

It's part of an overall relative Arab aversion to learning and reading. Arabs are near the bottom of the heap on a per capita basis in publications of books and translations. Westerners make a much more serious effort to translate Arab works than Arabs themselves do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's part of an overall relative Arab aversion to learning and reading. Arabs are near the bottom of the heap on a per capita basis in publications of books and translations. Westerners make a much more serious effort to translate Arab works than Arabs themselves do.

Legendary post by KKKadhim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...