Read on Twitter
Instead of dismissing a criticism as simply stemming from a person& #39;s bad mood, perhaps some introspection would be more worth our time! What is actually being criticized here? Let& #39;s say - for arguments sake - that a person didn& #39;t word their criticism well, should we dismiss it? https://twitter.com/DrShadeeElmasry/status/1247260573282308096">https://twitter.com/DrShadeeE...
It appears to me what is actually being criticized is the sanctification and subsequent commodification of a "tradition."
He uses the marginalia as an example of this - while it used to be a matter of necessity and utility, it is used a selling point of differentiation.
He uses the marginalia as an example of this - while it used to be a matter of necessity and utility, it is used a selling point of differentiation.
This commodification doesn& #39;t stop at the point that was brought as an example by Abdullah Al-Rabbat, but it extends further than that.
Look at the picture and see how the book is being marketed!
Look at the picture and see how the book is being marketed!
Did you catch that? The marketing claim is that this book was "arguably the most popular book in the Muslim world for 1000 years; second only to the Quran."
Where on earth is this from? How was this even determined?
Where on earth is this from? How was this even determined?
If the count of manuscripts of a book is a measure of popularity, does the Shama& #39;il have more manuscripts than the Sahih of Al-Bukhari (2327) or Sahih Muslim (532)?
* These are rough counts. For further information on this check out Al-Fahras Al-Shamil
* These are rough counts. For further information on this check out Al-Fahras Al-Shamil
I flipped open Muhammad & #39;Awwamah& #39;s edition of a sharh of this book, Maher Al-Fahl& #39;s and Kowshak& #39;s as well. None of them seem to be making this claim at all.
Why is this "Arguably" wrong point being used to market this overpriced translation?
Why is this "Arguably" wrong point being used to market this overpriced translation?
All these add-ons (paper quality, hardback, book cover, golden, designs) are used to increase the selling price of the book yet don& #39;t really add tangible value?
And because some of the add-ons resemble something found from the tradition, all of a sudden it makes it reasonable?
And because some of the add-ons resemble something found from the tradition, all of a sudden it makes it reasonable?
Side point: This is a sample pic of the book. In this picture, there seems to be a glaring error in the translation of the chains.
Wahb isn& #39;t the transmitter from Anas, nor was he the friend.
I SWEAR I WASN& #39;T LOOKING FOR A MISTAKE. THIS IS LITERALLY THEIR SAMPLE PHOTO FROM THEM!
Wahb isn& #39;t the transmitter from Anas, nor was he the friend.
I SWEAR I WASN& #39;T LOOKING FOR A MISTAKE. THIS IS LITERALLY THEIR SAMPLE PHOTO FROM THEM!
I am not going to judge the quality of their translation from one mistake, but at the same time: it doesn& #39;t give a good first impression either.
Anyways back to the issue: What is our goal in translating and publishing these works? Is it to spread benefit or make profit?
Anyways back to the issue: What is our goal in translating and publishing these works? Is it to spread benefit or make profit?
I am not against people making profit from books. But what is the priority? Since this is now the best translation of the book (according to them), shouldn& #39;t the priority be getting this book in as many hands as possible?
Point is: Let& #39;s introspect instead of being so quick to dismiss and maybe - just maybe - we find that there are truths to these criticisms and that the sentiment is correct, as is the case here.
Allah Knows Best.
Allah Knows Best.
