tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post479237279985333223..comments2023-11-05T01:45:58.784-07:00Comments on The Hesperado: The scholarly quality -- or lack thereof -- of the Anti-Islam Movement: Mark Durie's emendation of Keller's Reliance of the TravellerHesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post-14958957229123593962010-05-26T17:05:45.637-07:002010-05-26T17:05:45.637-07:00Thanks randian. So "piece of skin on the gla...Thanks randian. So "piece of skin on the glans" is not anatomically incorrect to denote the foreskin (considering that it is 14th century Arabs).Hesperadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post-27009138842301128152010-05-26T10:08:22.397-07:002010-05-26T10:08:22.397-07:00The foreskin surrounds the glans. It is a double-s...The foreskin <i>surrounds</i> the glans. It is a double-sided extension of the shaft skin anchored just underneath the base of the glans. The outside of the foreskin is like the skin on the shaft of the penis but the inner foreskin is mucosal membrane like the inside of the eyelid or the mouth. At birth and for the first few years of a boy's life, the inside of the foreskin is attached or fused to the glans, in very much the way the eyelids of a newborn kitten are sealed closed. The tissue that connects these two surfaces dissolves naturally over time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post-52448374176234714472010-05-26T09:53:45.830-07:002010-05-26T09:53:45.830-07:00randian,
If you go to the pdf, search for "c...randian,<br /><br />If you go to the pdf, search for "clitoris" and it will take you to the relevant part.<br /><br />According to Durie there, the translator he rejects (Keller) translates the Arabic as "[circumcision] consists of removing the prepuce from the penis.." and nowhere does Keller mention the "glans". <br /><br />It is Durie in his own translation who uses "glans" (and though he does not use "prepuce", he uses apparently its equivalent, "the piece of skin on the glans").<br /><br />The crux of Durie's disagreement with Keller is that Keller is translating the Arabic in such a way as to make both male and female circumsion involving only the cutting off of the "prepuce" -- for men the prepuce over the penis, for women the prepuce over the litoris. Durie claims the Arabic makes a distinction between the "piece of skin" cut off from the male, vs. the entire clitors cut out from the female.<br /><br />See my "Addendum" I added to my essay for more.Hesperadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post-41338883610347069272010-05-26T09:13:08.626-07:002010-05-26T09:13:08.626-07:00randian,
Thanks for that clarification.
None of ...randian,<br /><br />Thanks for that clarification.<br /><br />None of the variants I provided of Durie's rendering can be salvaged, given your clarification of the difference between glans and foreskin. Durie's most literal rendering is practically incomprehensible, given its primitive grammar:<br /><br />"...(and-he cuts-off the-piece-of-skin which on glans the-penis...)"<br /><br />As I wrote in the essay, the best sense that can be gotten from this would be the following:<br /><br />"...(and he cuts off the piece of skin which on the glans is the penis...)"<br /><br />This of course would be worse than saying that the glans is cut off. Thus I surmised that Durie had mistakenly reversed "glans" and "penis":<br /><br />"...(and he cuts off the piece of skin which on the penis is the glans...)"<br /><br />But this raises the problem you called attention to -- that circumcision is not the cutting off of the glans, but of the foreskin.<br /><br />As to the Arabic, Durie provided it in a pdf document, so apparently it is available for anyone who knows Arabic to see. I find it frustrating that in our day and age, with all the resources available to us, the Anti-Islam Movement can't just have two or three Arab scholars on hand to look at the Arabic and verify claims made about it.<br /><br />Here's the pdf:<br /><br />http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/Witness%20Statement.pdf <br /><br />In his more finished translation, Durie at least does not make the mistake of implying that the penis is cut off:<br /><br />"...by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male..."<br /><br />However, is it accurate to say that the foreskin is "on the glans"?Hesperadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post-30663574949057994622010-05-25T18:42:58.273-07:002010-05-25T18:42:58.273-07:00A small quibble. It is the foreskin of the penis, ...A small quibble. It is the <i>foreskin</i> of the penis, not the <i>glans ("head")</i>, that is intended to be removed by circumcision. Obviously, Muslims are not removing the glans, no matter what Reliance says.<br /><br />A number of issues arise from this apparent misunderstanding:<br /><br />1) Does the original Arabic language distinguish between the two anatomical features?<br />2) If yes, what Arabic word is actually in the original text? If it actually says "glans" it's simply wrong anatomically speaking. Given the reverence given the text by Muslims, subsequent Muslim copyists may have felt that despite the obvious error it's wrong to alter a text by such a noted scholar. That sort of silly fidelity to an original work was also seen in European monks. Of course, we don't actually have an original, so we can't be certain that "glans" was simply a mistake made by an earlier copyist and preserved though the ages.<br />3) Is "foreskin" erroneously being mistranslated as "glans" by the translator?<br />4) Is there a mistranslation being made in order to "correct" the text?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com