Discrepancy in Mohhammed's farewell sermon?

O

Operacast

Well-Known Member
Messages
320
Reaction score
4
Points
18
I'm puzzled. I've now seen two different versions of a key passage in Mohammed's farewell sermon. One version reads --

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white – except by piety and good action." --

-- and the other reads --

"all of you are from Adam, and Adam was from the ground. The noblest of you in Allah’s sight is the most godfearing: Arab has no merit over non-Arab other than godfearingness." --

Please, can anyone tell me how come the discrepancy, and might anyone know what are the two different sources behind the two versions?

Many thanks,

Operacast
 
Salaam/hello,

The discrepancy comes from the reports in the hadiths. The overall sermon has the same basic meaning regardless of the reports. However, that raises the question of which hadith that reported the sermon is most correct? Or should we even worry about that considering that the message behind the sermon, regardless of wording is the same? It's similar to the four NT Gospels. We see some discrepancies about Jesus' crucifixion (spelling?) but the main message is the same: he was crucified, he rose, etc.
 
Amica said:
Salaam/hello,

The discrepancy comes from the reports in the hadiths. The overall sermon has the same basic meaning regardless of the reports. However, that raises the question of which hadith that reported the sermon is most correct? Or should we even worry about that considering that the message behind the sermon, regardless of wording is the same? It's similar to the four NT Gospels. We see some discrepancies about Jesus' crucifixion (spelling?) but the main message is the same: he was crucified, he rose, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm a textual scholar. I always worry. :)

Seriously, though, what would be useful is knowing if there's any scholarly consensus right now on the derivation of the specific versions (i.e., along the lines of -- say -- Mohammed's secretary is known to have assembled the version where M. says such-and-such during the decade of the _____s, while the other version apparently comes from slightly later, but it appears to be from M.s own family when _______ was working with the family to collect all the _____s known to have survived after the battle of _________, etc., etc.).

Any kind of info like that would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks,

OperaCast
 
the discrepency comes from words chosen for the translation; translations are not allways literally word for word but used to portray the basic meaning of what is being said, and some are 'edited' forms while others are more elaborate and comprehensive

this seems the most likely explanation of the above discrepancy and not one of distorted hadiths
 
Abdullah said:
the discrepency comes from words chosen for the translation; translations are not allways literally word for word but used to portray the basic meaning of what is being said, and some are 'edited' forms while others are more elaborate and comprehensive

this seems the most likely explanation of the above discrepancy
Click to expand...

Not. You didn't read the OP. One version says "All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white – except by piety and good action." Here we have explicit reference to Eve, and to whites and blacks.

The other version says "all of you are from Adam, and Adam was from the ground. The noblest of you in Allah’s sight is the most godfearing: Arab has no merit over non-Arab other than godfearingness." Here we have explicit reference to Adam being from the ground, and to Allah. There is no reference to Eve here, nor to whites and blacks. These are not mere differences in translation!

So don't give me that. That's insulting. I wasn't born yesterday. -- And next time, read the OP.

Operacast
 
thats right you weren't born yesterday; more like in the last minute! :D
 
ill give you an example of how common sense is failing you here mr 'textual scholar' :rolleyes:

if in the hadith it says just 'Adam', then the translator elaborated to make it easier to understand specifically for the non-Muslim reader by writing 'Adam and Eve', and if the hadith said 'Adam and Eve' then the translator edited it and just wrote 'Adam'; both basically portray the same concept.

calm down and try to use a bit of CC mate and then i'm sure it will all make sense! ;)
 
Abdullah said:
ill give you an example of how common sense is failing you here mr 'textual scholar' :rolleyes:

if in the hadith it says just 'Adam', then the translator elaborated to make it easier to understand specifically for the non-Muslim reader by writing 'Adam and Eve', and if the hadith said 'Adam and Eve' then the translator edited it and just wrote 'Adam'; both basically portray the same concept.

calm down and try to use a bit of CC mate and then i'm sure it will all make sense! ;)
Click to expand...

Get real. It's preposterous to think one translator would reference whites and blacks and the other wouldn't. Clearly, those are two different originals. We don't need know-nothing speculations here. We need to hear from scholars who know something about the originals.

WHERE'S MUSLIMWOMAN WHEN WE NEED HER?

Operacast
 
I would think the short text is a literal translation, and the longer text a paraphrase to bring out the meaning: "black" vs. "white" wasn't really a major divide back then, but "Arab" vs. "non-Arab" is not the most relevant way of saying "the group that thinks its better vs. the group that they put down" anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top