ترجمة مقال د.ابراهيم عوض فى تفنيد افتراء اسم الرسول لم يكن محمد

[نسيبة بنت كعب]

السلام عليكم

الأخو الكرام كتب الدكتور ابراهيم عوض مقال رائع استحق الترجمة

المقال موجود هنا وعلى موقعه باسم المأساة الجعيطية فى كتابة السيرة النبوية

هنا http://www.arabswata.org/forums/showthread.php?t=29177

ومرفق ايضا

الترجمة تتبع ......

[نسيبة بنت كعب]

I wrote a long study Months ago answering back to the ridiculous view of Dr. Hisham Ga’ait, whose summary is that the name of the Prophet Muhammad, was not Muhammad; but rather it was Kathm. I had looked before I wrote that study, for Ga’ait’s book on the Prophetic Traditions, a book in which this hasty opinion was stated. However, I could not manage then to find it. Only four nights ago I got hold of the book by mere coincidence. It comprises two parts, issued by “Dar El-Taliaa”- Beirut in January 2007. I started turning over the pages of the second part, entitled: "On the Prophetic Traditions 2– the Historicity of Mohammedan message in Mecca," because it is the part in which the author dealt with the prophet's name and made his ridiculous claim that his real name "Kathm" and not Mohammed. No sooner had I finished reading a few pages to read, than I found a pile of mistakes. All of which belonged to the shameful outrageous ridiculous kind. Although I read the rest of the book hurriedly; however, the amount of errors and gaps that I met during that was tremendous: There are weakness, incorrectness and the disintegration of thought and contradiction of speech and weakness of methodology and beating about the bushes and ignorance of the required sources for the subject and inability to read properly ...

Here I place in the hands of the reader on what I became aware of during this hasty reading, which is in fact a matter that causes nausea.

The first thing to observe about Dr Gaait is that his style is not beautiful in any way. In addition, it is swarming with mistakes, obscurity and subtle words. This makes it almost strange to me. Despite the fact that his father, as I read, was among the scientists of Tunisia; however, unfortunately, it is clear that this did not have the expected influence on what he had written. For example, the following statement suggesting that we are facing a foreign student learning recently Arabic, as he not master it yet: "Here on the tomb and in the mosque of the prophet the founder of the religion, identity and significant historicity, a mosque in Medina Mosque, while under construction, a meeting took place between Abd El-Malik and Saeed Bin El-Musayyib ... " (P. 34). It is not a statement that hints anything of Arabism scent, with what it had of weak structure and croakiness, as if its writer were a non Arab. This is as well as his saying in the following page: “ the idea of history got confirmed with both men (he meant Erwa bin El-Zubair and Abdul Malik bin Marwan): How did these matters start, these that brought about the Holy Bible, by the integration of the group, to the ruling of the world?".

on the nineteenth page we are met with the word أثريتi.e.”enriched", which our sagacious writer used in the following sentence:

"أُثْرِيَتِالمكتبة التاريخية واتسعت إمكانيات الباحث"

"The historical library enriched and expanded the possibilities of the researcher" as a transitive verb meaning “was enriched”; hence, he put into the passive form. However, it was not a transitive verb as Gaait fancied by his poor linguistic culture (29). Rather, it is an intransitive verb meaning “got rich”. Thus, we could say that that a certain trade أثرت i.e. enriched a certain person, or that a certain lecture enriched our understanding of that certain subject i.e. it made it rich. This usage was repeatedly applied in other places. In contrast to the transitivity of the verb "أثري" i.e. "enriched", we find him make the verb مس i.e. to befall intransitive and adds to its object the letter باء , so he says "مس فلان بكذا " i.e. “to befall somebody with a thing” (pp. 264-265& 269). In the second part of the book this was repeated twice on page, once in page 90 and another time in page 91. This is instead of مسه “befell him “as it should be used. The same usage in the latter verb happened with the verb "عم" i.e. “prevailed in “, it is a transitive verb in Arabic; however, the author uses it as an intransitive verb adding to its object the preposition على i.e. “on” in the statement:

"والإسلام فى آخر المطاف لم يعمّ على الحجازبما فى ذلك مكة إلا بتكوين أمة فدولة فقوة ضاربة سياسية"

"eventually, Islam did not prevail in the Hijaz including Mecca, except by the composition of a nation, then a State, then a striking political force" ( P. 316).

الترجمة 55 صفحة نكتفى بنشر جزء منها ونرفق الملف كاملا

تحياتى

[أسد الجهاد]

Quote

مضيت بضع صفحات فى القراءة حتى وجدت أخطاءً بالكوم، وكلها من النوع المضحك المخزى فى آن. ورغم أنى قرأت بقية الكتاب على عجل فإن مقدار الأخطاء والثغرات التى قابلتنى أثناء ذلك شىء هائل: فهناك الركاكة والاستعجام وتفكك الفكر وتناقض الكلام وضعف المنهجية واللف والدوران والجهل بالمصادر اللازمة للموضوع والعجز عن القراءة السليمة

وجميع المتطاولين كذالك
{فَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ بِآيَاتِهِ أُولَئِكَ يَنَالُهُمْ نَصِيبُهُمْ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ حَتَّى إِذَا جَاءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُنَا يَتَوَفَّوْنَهُمْ قَالُوا أَيْنَ مَا كُنْتُمْ تَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ قَالُوا ضَلُّوا عَنَّا وَشَهِدُوا عَلَى أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَنَّهُمْ كَانُوا كَافِرِينَ}الأعراف37
جزاكم الله خيرا