Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study examines the nuances among the chosen near-synonyms and the extent to which the translators considered such nuances in the selected translations of the Qur'an. It seeks to identify the meanings of two sets of near-synonyms in their Qur'anic contexts based on the Qur'ānic exegeses. It also highlights the differences in meaning that exist among these near-synonyms and the extent to which the semantic differences among those near-synonyms are preserved in translation. This study is grounded on the RC-S approach by Murphy as a theoretical framework for data analysis. The obtained results show that there are some differences in meaning among the chosen near-synonyms and that some of such nuances are not preserved in the English and French translations. Thus, the study recommends that the differences in meaning among the near-synonyms should be identified before translating the Qur'änic texts, and subsequently, the identified differences should be reflected in the translation.

For readers for whom 'summer reading' means 'a really long book,' here are three pleasing giants.

In a remarkable preface to his final work, published after his death, Joseph Agoub offered an eloquent defense of the Arabic language, placing Egypt for the first time in his works as just one element in a larger Arab world. In this text, Agoub acknowledged his debt to the work of Arab intellectuals like Mikha’il Sabbagh and Ellious Bocthor who had come to Paris before him. But where in his early poetry he had condemned Islam as a barbarian attack on the glories of ancient Egypt, for the first time Agoub acknowledged the Qur’an as one of the inexhaustible sources

Elias used Abu al-Qasim's Mu(c)tazilite objections to the Trinitarian hypostases to reinforce the Sunni orthodoxy of the Christian trinity, which he then interpreted in terms of the divine names and attributes. In their zeal to defend God's oneness, the Mu(c)tazilites antagonized other Muslims by violating the literal sense of the Qur'an and by declaiming against the use of Arabic substantives, which their opponents held up as the immutable epithets of God. To Abu al-Qasim, \"Life\" was a false attribute of divinity that smacked of the same eternity as that of the Creator (VII, 82). That Islam and Christianity could converge on this matter may seem unusual; Samir barely touches the issue (cf. VI, 45ff). But the claim is corroborated by H.A. Wolfson's pregnant findings on the religious dialogue in Syria after 635 AD, when it passed under Muslim rule. On the one hand, Wolfson links the orthodox Muslim belief in the reality and the eternity of divine attributes to the orthodox Christian belief in the eternity and the reality of the trinity.(5) On the other, he links the heretical Muslim denial of this doctrine with the heretical Christian denial of trinity.(6) By denying eternal attributes, Abu al-Qasim and most other Mu(c)tazilites hoped to safeguard God's unity. While this position may have helped them to distinguish their beliefs from Christian Trinitarianism, it failed to take hold. Orthodox Islamic theology, which the ahl al-sunnah wal-jama(c)ah claimed to embody, saw only ta(c)til and roundly dismissed the Mu(c)tazilite position. Samir offers a helpful analysis of this problem in the eleventh paper (XI, 622). While Elias' insistence on semantic exactitude may seem pedantic, linguistics took a prominent place around this time. (Abu Bishr Matta's dispute with al-Sirafi is a case in point.) Yet, on issues more critical than this, Elias illustrated his views by pointing to the equivocal expressions, not the precision, of his language. Thus, in a separate treatise altogether (the ninth paper of this collection), he describes how Christians sometimes associate kiyan and ilah with created beings. In Arabic, this association has unacceptable connotations for Muslims. Elias justifies it by pointing out that some expressions are equivocal (with more than one referent) in the Syriac language but not in the Arabic; just as rabb is equivocal but Allah is univocal (one referent) in Arabic. This is why Syrian Christians may ascribe ilah to both created being and Creator without taking it for an essential attribute of the former (IX, 114). In this way, Elias hoped to assuage Muslim misgivings about the identification of Jesus with God. He dismissed any such facile identification and pluckily distinguished plain human qualities from divinity. The full Arabic text of this important treatise, with French translation, is included in this collection. Besides the sizable portions of Kitab al-majalis, the collection includes an exhaustive, annotated bibliography of Elias' published and unpublished writings, and of previous studies on Elias of Nisibis; Samir summarizes not only Elias' long list of writings but each section of Kitab al-majalis, including those works covered in this volume. The second paper finally establishes the date of Elias' death at 18 July 1046 AD. The third and fourth papers are part of a scholarly debate which Fr. Constantine al-Basha's publication of Kitab daf (c)al-hamm precipitated back in 1902. Kitab daf(c)al-hamm had at first been attributed to Abu al-Faraj Gregorius b. Ibri, alias Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286). Samir dismisses this attribution and, in the fourth paper, demonstrates why the real author could only have been Elias of Nisibis. The fifth paper sheds some light on Elias' brother, Abu Sa(c)id Manur b. (c)Isa, honored as Zahid al-(c)Ulama' (\"the ascetic scholar\"). Abu Sa(c)id was the personal physician of Abu al-Qasim, the same vizier whom Elias debated.