In their rendition of 9:18 the religionists declare firmly that the meaning of the word ya’maru is to frequent God’s mosque.
Yet they claim the same word in 9:19 means managing the holy mosque. Both words are derived from the same root ‘amr. Some translators even say inhabiting the holy mosque. That is the extent of their twisting.
According to the Reading, a person who manages or administers something is called ‘amil (from the word ‘amila). The root for ‘amil is ‘-m-l and the root for ‘umra is ‘-m-r. They are not the same. The word ‘amil appears several times in the Reading:
In-namas sor-da-qortu lil fuqoror wal-masakin wal-‘amilin alai-ha (9:60)
Indeed, the charity shall go to the poor and the needy and those administering it. (9:60)
It may be favourable for the religionists to mislead the Muslims about the meaning of the Arabic words in the Reading, but they are powerless to alter the original texts. Unlike other books, the Reading has never been reviewed or edited. If we pick up a Qur’an written, say, 800 years ago or more from any country and compare it with the most recent text printed from anywhere in the world, we will find the Arabic texts, word for word and sentence for sentence, to be exactly the same. The author strongly believes the statement in the Book is true in nature, form and effect when it says:
Indeed, it is We who revealed the reminder, and surely We will guard it. (15:9)
The religionists’ erroneous claim that the Reading was written on leaves, parchments, stones, and animal skins. It is inconceivable and ludicrous that a message as important as the Reading should be revealed to mankind and then be recorded on parchment, leaves, stones and the like.
Obviously, the only way left to deceive mankind was by tongue-twisting tactics: convince the people that the Reading is untranslatable (like the Jews said about the Torah) so that the religionists can continue to distort the meaning of the Scripture, and then proclaim that the basis of whatever they say is from God. The followers of the Arab religion around the world are caught in this web after placing their trust in the priests who learnt their craft from the corrupt Arab sages. The Reading did not forget to tell us about them:
Indeed there are among them traitors who twist their tongues with the Scripture so that you may think it is from the Scripture when they are not from the Scripture. And they claim it is from God when it is not. They have ascribed lies to God while they knew. (3:78)
When we confront any scholars with the above verse they will say it refers to the people of the previous scriptures. What makes them think they are exempted from doing the same?
Anyway, a chain reaction begins once one word is distorted in the Book. They have to distort other words too. There is no end to the distortions, and most of the time the distorted passage becomes absurd when read as a whole. Today, the Book is seen as an inward-looking archive, particularly the present-day translations and so-called exegesis (or tafsir) of the Reading. This is the terrible result of the wordplay and semantic twisting that the words of the Reading have undergone at the hands of those who – more than anyone – should have known better.